Penny Dreadful - A Review

'Penny Dreadful' is a silly, sordid, mess of a Victorian monster mash-up ... and I love it!

*** no spoilers ***

This Showtime/Sky co-production aired earlier in the year on Sky Atlantic. Even though I was a Sky subscriber at the time, I eschewed Sky Atlantic as it seemed another of Sky's tawdry attempts to isolate re-sellers by placing premier shows on their new channel. I ain't playin' yo stinkin' games Mr Murdoch. Also it seemed all too much blood and gore for my liking ... or maybe it was just the wrong time. In any case, I've only just decided to tuck into the first series, and was very much surprised - pleasantly at that.

The show's first season (it looks like there will be a second) is 8 episodes, each around an hour's viewing time. The setting is Victorian London ... the London of Holmes, Jack the Ripper, and swirling fog, despair, and debauchery. A theme familiar to viewers of the departed 'Ripper Street'. 

"Are you flossing regularly?"

Into this world we are introduced to a collection of familiar, yet mysterious, characters; literary figures of the times - an adventurer, a medium, a surgeon of dubious practices, a seemingly immortal young man, and their various associated characters. Named after the sordid, sensationalist novellas (costing only a penny of course) of the time, 'Penny Dreadful' mashes up these characters' familiar stories into an exuberant, Gothic, visual feast which although not likely to gain any mainstream awards, delivers well in style, excitement, and traditional horror themes.

Technically the show is excellent. The set designs lavish and bold; the camera-work precise without being overly flamboyant. At times the sound was slightly muddy, but this is a minor grumble. This is a show that looks good ... the opening credits give you a good idea of what visually is to come:

The cast is largely well-known and do good work with a script that overall succeeds at handling the outlandish storyline within the confines of the times. Timothy Dalton heads the 'heroes' (such a term though is ill-fitting for any character as they are all essentially dark-hearted people, struggling - often literally - with internal demons) as Sir Malcolm Murray, the African adventurer, who cares more for his fame than his family; a broken, arrogant, egotist who is the focus of the group. He brings to his employment a young doctor (who has his own agenda, and demons) played by Harry Treadaway; an American sharp-shooting showman, Josh Hartnett; a friend of his daughter, the spiritualist Vanessa Ives, played by Eva Green; and Mallory's own "man-servant" from his African expeditions, Sembene, played by Danny Sapani.

Additional regular characters are played by Billie Piper (a dying consumptive), Rory Kinnear, and Reeve Carney as Dorian Gray. The latter is worth singling out, as the role of a fey 'pretty-boy' can be hard to play with any veracity, yet Carney brings unexpected depth and nuance to the role.

Without doubt though, this is Eva Green's show. She excels as the enigmatic Miss Ives, letting slip only hints of the torment she has imprisoned within. It's a compelling, magnetic, and alluring performance, offering many opportunities to toy with the other characters and viewer. It's not completely without flaw, but the camera draws you to her in every scene, and she fizzes with restrained emotion. The memorable scenes come from her.

There are also lovely cameo performances from Alun Armstrong and David Warner; any show with David Warner can't be all bad.

I'm not sure where the show can go; whether is will eventually limp to obscurity or suffer an early, unfinished, demise, but when I compare this to, say, 'The Strain' it's far superior in all elements.

"I hate flocked wallpaper. How many times do I have to tell you?"

I've deliberately tried to avoid much precision in plot details. However this is a mash-up story, with plot-lines less interwoven and more running parallel for each main character. Sometimes bumping into one another, but the eccentricity and enthusiasm of the story is part of the joy. It's like one of those old Univeral 'House of Dracula'/'House of Frankenstein' movies from the 40s but more so. Everything thrown into a pot of extraordinary characters, and left to bubble over. It is blood and gore, and sordid excess, and fleshy bits, but it also plays it wonderfully straight and genuinely. Marvellous.

Scottish Independence Referendum

"I believe in a Scotland free from Westminster interference."

"I believe in Scotland becoming a democratic, self-governing country..."

"I believe that Scotland is good enough to be an independent nation, trading and building harmonious relations with the rest of the world"

What has the Scottish Independence referendum got to do with the rest of Britain? Well, a lot as 'Scotland' is currently a country that is a part of my nation, so I am affected by its future.

But it's not my place to say how the Scottish people should vote - that's their choice, but I do think they need to be weighing the right factors when making this decision, and appreciate its importance.

Is it important? Hell, yes.

Referendums come along very infrequently in the UK (maybe they'll be every other week in 'free-Scotland' ... who knows) and it's not as though there will be another one on this matter next year, or a year later. Or even 5 years. Or 15. This decision will be a commitment for the next 50 years. So decisions should be based on that sort of time-scale, not purely on what's happening now, and for you. The consideration needs to be about what the UK and Scotland will look like in 10 years time; under different governments, and in different political, social, and economic climates. This isn't about "today"; it's about many tomorrows.

Nor should it be seen as a typical political choice. Here, the SNP have been canny in trying to make it look like a choice between Westminster and Holyrood (it is) but dressed it as 'Tories' or 'SNP' (which it's not). It's not, because this current Tory government ends next year (even if they are returned, it won't be this government) and the SNP won't be the same SNP in 2025 as it is in 2014. This is a long-term decision, so don't base it on what is happening today in either place. It's not about that.

Promises, promises.

To steal a line or two from young Mr McAvoy ... don't base your decision on whether you think you'll be better or worse off after independence. Politicians always promise the Earth and deliver dirt - pre-election promises soon forgotten post-acceptance. Will you be better off with an independent Scotland? No-one really knows. There's speculation, threats, predictions, forecasts, and hot-air. But don't think independent Scotland will suddenly become a land of milk and honey. Life just isn't like that. If the complaint is that "if we're 'Better Together' then why aren't we?", then if it's better to be ruled by the SNP, why isn't it better now? With devolved powers, how much has life changed for you?

Promises are made and broken. This is political life. That won't change whether you're in Britain or out of it. So don't let "I'll be better off voting this way" sway you. We're always being told "you'll be better off if you vote for me" - it's rarely true; frequently false. Don't let promises influence your vote.

Make your Decision

If you can't trust politicians(!) then what can you do?  Vote for what you believe in. If you truly believe that staying within a united Britain is the way forward, then vote 'No'; if you think a separate Scotland is for you, then vote 'Yes'. Do it for those reasons; do it for your own reasons; do what you think is right for your nation.

From my own point of view, Great Britain is a nation made better by its parts; by their separate identities, joined in a union. This is a nation that has been together through hard times, great triumphs, divisive issues, and amazing human achievement, for over four hundred years England and Scotland have been united. That's the level of decision we are now looking at.

And those opening quotes? Well, they're not from me. I took them from here (with very small amendments) - if these words sound familiar, then we can apply them as much for this referendum as we can for the idea of a United Kingdom out of Europe ... it's the same argument (although that union is backed by only 40 years of history).

We are all governed by a group of people distant from us; ideologically, geographically; politically; ... but if we want to split Scotland from Great Britain for *those* reasons, then the Scottish Islanders can say just the same about Holyrood. Let's give them the independence they want too. And then the Highlanders ... what does the City of Edinburgh know about those people? In fact Glasgow would be better on its own too? Maybe your district? Your street? You? Let's make as many divisions as we can. I've heard every man is an island.

Or something like that.

A Post not about Depression

Depression is suddenly in the news again, following the tragic death of Robin Williams. Here, I'll not be talking about depression.

It's not something I talk about. For reasons I'll not state. That's how it is for me.

A lot of reaction to the death has focussed on the health issues he had, centred around addiction and depression, and there has been a lot in social media about depression and what is, and isn't, the right way to support sufferers.

I'd just like to say that we need to consider this illness along the same lines as cancer is now viewed. We don't think of cancer as being one illness, with one treatment, but rather as an umbrella term for a range of illnesses. This is why we don't talk about a "wonder-drug" to cure cancer, but drugs that are effective against certain forms of cancer. No single, silver bullet.

Depression is a term used to cover a range of illnesses. Treatment that works perfectly well for one person, will not work for another. Causes in one patient will be different to the causes in another. Even sufferers will not be able to say whether their treatment will work in another ... having it doesn't make you an expert on anyone else's. Each illness is separate, and unique to the sufferer.

It's insidious and clever, and knows how to counter the tools you develop to fight it off. It's like playing chess against an opponent that can read your mind.

Do not preach your solutions to others. They might work, they might not, but it carries no more validity than "cheer up", and no less. The treatment is unique to the condition. 

All you can do is offer support, and the form of that support will be set by the patient, and your relationship to them. There's no blueprint to follow, like there's no blueprint for friendship. No prescriptive advice - you know how to treat your friends without needing the words of strangers.

For Pebz!

Here is a vine:



See?

Whitby Pubs

One of the things I used to do, but kept to myself, was to indicate the best pubs in places that I've visited. So as you're all really really interested in my opinion on this crucial aspect of modern-day life, I thought I'd share.

Firstly, let's clarify what makes a good pub - the beer.

Okay, having gone through that list let's cover the aspects that might discourage a recommendation:

• loud music
• neon signage
• lots of huge TV screens
• young people
• even younger people (i.e. children)
• chrome fittings
• shabby furnishings
• poor service
• a lack of beer

There are quite a number of pubs in Whitby, some of which I don't think I'd re-visit. A few along the harbour-side (whale-bone side) are okay, but are either too "family-friendly" (Pier Inn), or are too difficult to get into without having to step over a drunk (The Jolly Sailors). Or the Buck Inn - which ticks a number of items in the list above.  So, avoid those in general. There are many; we can be picky.

Stepping across the swing bridge, towards the Abbey, immediately on your right is the Dolphin. This have recently been refurbished and has been much improved. It offers a decent selection of beers; and a good collection of food. Slightly better than what I'd call simple 'pub grub' and well worth one or two visits. Service was fine, if not stunning. The views out towards the bridge and west bank are also a bonus. Busy in high season.

The Dolphin

Further into the cobbled streets of Whitby there are two pubs at the end of the main road, close to the 199 steps: the Board Inn and the Duke of York.

The Duke of York is very popular due to the views across the harbour from a number of the tables. Again, this has had a couple of minor alterations in recent years to expand capacity, and there's a fairly obvious nautical theme. Furnishings are pleasant, staff friendly and efficient. The meals are fine, and the beer is good. If you can get in, then one of the nicer pubs in Whitby, and not resting on its laurels.

(there are no decent pictures of the Duke of York ... certainly the interior shown on their website is pre-alterations)

Next door (and don't accidentally exit the Duke of York for a swift tab, then return to the wrong venue) is the Board Inn. Slightly ignored in favour of its neighbour this is a decent, simple, local pub. Cheap pub grub and nicely kept beer, usually with a few different Theakston's on. You won't go in here and feel disappointed, if it's not exactly a 'wow'.

The Board Inn (on right is Duke of York ... it's that close!)

One other pub of note is The Shambles - up the steps near to the cobbled square 50m from the Board Inn. A nice selection of fairly well-kept beer, and okay food but mainly of note for seating offering views across the harbour. Good if a little soulless - not quite a pub, as you'll understand if you go. There are at least another five pubs on this side of the harbour, all within 10 minutes' walk ... plenty of choice!


Returning to the whale-bone side of the town there are a few more pubs worth a mention.

The Wetherspoons in Whitby (The Angel Hotel) is on the corner, just passed where the leisure boats are booked. Although nothing special (beer isn't great, and I'd avoid the food) it's enormous inside, and has one of the fewer outside seating areas which is a sun trap. You can sit and have a pleasant coffee with great views across to the Abbey up on the hill. Coffee and a bacon cob though, is about as far as you ought to sensibly go in terms of food and drink.

Going past the Wetherspoons, continuing towards the train station, you'll find the Station Inn. This has always been one of the better pubs in Whitby, and still is. Good selection of beers, pork pies to eat, and a couple of lovely big fires if you're visiting in the colder months. Busy at times (especially on quiz nights) but if you have the time to spare, a place for a lazy afternoon to slip by.

Station Inn

And finally, on the corner as you going up past the church you'll find the Little Angel. One of only a few pubs in Whitby to show sport on TV, but not in an obtrusive way. The beer is good, and although there's not really a food selection beyond a few sandwiches at lunchtime, it's where to go if you need a fix of sport. Bar staff friendly, and it's an easy, casual atmosphere.

The Little Angel

So that's my set of recommendations for pubs in Whitby. A set of at least half a dozen to busy yourself with. Enjoy!

Remember: beer - it'll never let you down.

Sherlock 3.02 - Review

Last night's Sherlock was so utterly disappointing that I feel I need to put down what was so wrong just to get over it.

I have no problems with a show based loosely upon Conan Doyle's great detective, but this show, from the outset, has chosen to show *the* Holmes, re-set to today's world, albeit with the obvious difference that the fictional detective was never created (one assumes ... or people in this world are strangely taciturn on the matter).

So, within this set-up, Sherlock needs to be the modern-day Sherlock Holmes, and for the most part the earlier series stuck to that remit. We had updated, yet still recognisable, Holmes stories, with a believable detective and comrade. This however, isn't what we've seen recently. We now have some inconsistent, dimwitted everyday man, with baffling legal connections, and confusing mind slips.

The 'plot' such as it was, took too long to be introduced, flitted around, then climaxed in disappointment. There was no wit, no flair, and no enjoyment. The issue here is that the BBC seem so pleased with the commercial success that they've lost control of Moffat's creation. Or they've forced out an extra series when the storylines weren't ready, just to fill the schedule and keep the pounds rolling in. It's no coincidence that many series start to suffer when writer/director start to take on producing roles - when there's no balancing voice stepping back and saying "hey, are you sure this is good enough?" I find it hard to believe that a producer would have let this rubbish be created had the commercial aspect not been already guaranteed by previous success.

Some of the more crass parts of the storyline (if we'll gloss over the excruciating early minutes that were clearly filler to hit the 90 minute mark)

The Murderer. Operating from some sense of righteous vengeance after the death of army personnel, seeks to kill the commanding officer who is held accountable. Yet, as part of his plan he "rehearses" the murder on an innocent guard? If he's out for revenge, how can his sense of justice let him murder an innocent, just to ensure his own safety? This makes no sense. Was the guard culpable as well?  Did we find this out, and I snoozed through it (possibly)

The Guard's (attempted) Murder. On finding the soldier bleeding to death in the shower, the soldier heads for the commanding officer declaring the soldier dead? He doesn't seek medical attention from the army's own doctor? Call an ambulance? No - he acts in a completely unbelievable manner, and with remarkable timing runs in to Watson, who is present at the exact moment of the guard's death. And then Watson calls Sherlock 'nurse' - yes, at the moment you're trying to save someone's life, it's important to make a little side joke about your relative positions at this moment. Quite apart from Sherlock's now apparent lack of knowledge about the human body, even though it's been demonstrated on several occasions that Sherlock has detailed knowledge of human anatomy

Obvious Clues. Leaving aside the fact the Sherlock then drops this murder puzzle for no apparent reason ("too tough; can't solve it" ... which is odd given that he was recounting this tale at the wedding, from a blog post Watson had written - we saw the web page - but apparently none of the guests are big fans of Watson's blog as evidently none had heard of either of the cases Holmes related) so leaving that aside, then the two items (Watson's middle name; that Watson would be attending a wedding) which reveal the killer connection were very, very obvious. To me at the time of watching; yet not to Sherlock when they happened? Conan Doyle made Holmes a brilliant detective - beyond what any man could hope to achieve. Yet suddenly this detective is missing such obvious clues? When did he become a dunderhead? It's established in flashback that Sherlock has searched for weeks/months for Watson's middle-name, so he'd be especially attuned to hearing that very middle name from someone else, and yet he completely misses it. Huh?

Photographer. The whole section of un-masking the photographer as the killer was illogical. Why bother looking through the man's photographs? They had no bearing on anything, other than to add (undramatic) pause. Surely we'd all figured out it was the photographer by that time? And why did it need to be the photographer? Because "no-one notices them, and they can slip in a needle to the wedding in their photography case"? But, the intended victim had brought a handgun with him ... surely that's more of a weapon than the murderer had? And a sword maybe?  This wasn't a high security event. Nobody was strip-searched at the door, or had their suitcases examined. The murderer could just have easily have walked in off the street; been already at the hotel; been a waiter; any number of less elaborate pretexts would have been sufficient. Sherlock's whole speech about the advantages leant by being a photographer were spurious. Anyone present had the means and opportunity. Just poison him next time you dolt, ring reception and ask for the room number, catch him on the way to or from the wedding, ... endless other options.

The Murder method. Well, it was kind of silly. Wouldn't such a small puncture wound heal in a few hours? Would blood gush out of such a small hole? Wouldn't you know you'd been stabbed?

Pass Key. Seriously, if someone is in a hotel room in mortal danger, ask reception to open the door. It saves having to kick it in, or negotiate with a potential suicide.

Stag night. Watson has no friends but Sherlock. And fortunately London bars are pretty lax on letting you walk into their bars with large glass beakers. Yes - you can do that in any bar in London. Walk in and walk out with glass. No problem.

And a few others (there are many more) ...

• pointless opening scenes to show that Lestrade trusts Sherlock too much. Sledge-hammer plot point. No nuance.
• Sherlock not understanding he was being asked to be best man. An obvious and unfunny joke, at odds with the actual character.
• Sherlock prepping wedding guests to be nice. Holmes wouldn't have an interest in such frippery; it was inconsistent with both previous Sherlock episodes, and with the Holmes character.
• Sherlock being sentimental to the point of nausea; no-one saying "hang on a sec pal, this is about the happy couple, not you" (the tedious wedding speech where Mary wasn't even mentioned, other than as an adjunct to Watson)

Almost the only moments of merit came from Freeman's Watson, who seemed to be acting in an altogether different, and better, television programme. Maybe in that other programme, Mary would exist for some reason other than as an excuse to set a story at a wedding. If you're going to introduce a new character, actually give her something to do. Seriously underused. 

Someone needs to take Moffat et al aside and say, "come on chaps, we know you're very successful right now, but you have to try a little harder. Cumberbatch swishing a coat might thrill the same people who scream at One Direction, but you ought to be aiming a little higher than that."  This is Holmes dammit ... if you want to make just any old programme, then choose a different central character.

Battlestar Galactica - a Review

Battlestar Galactica - a Review

I never watched Battlestar Galactica (BSG) when it was 'on' - I recall flicking on to a few episodes to see scantily clad young ladies sweating, and thought it wasn't for me. So, I'm late in the day here, but a colleague recently lent me the entire series box set and since March I've been ploughing through them. And so here is my review of the much-admired show.

Spoiler Alert

Contains *many* spoilers!

Cylon!

Cylon!

In summary it struck me a lot like Lost. Remember Lost at the beginning? When it was clever, mysterious, and intriguing? When you were thinking - is the island moving? does everything that kid think of materialise? who are The Others? What do those numbers mean?  And then - much like other J.J. Abrahms shows - it just fizzled out. An idea that started one way; became too popular so it *had* to be drawn out, and then became nothing sensible in the end. So, that for me, is almost BSG. 'Almost' I say, as at least BSG *ended*. And properly - there's nothing more to see here. We're done.

Grumpy Old Cylon

The Pilot

The pilot show was excellent. Very good indeed. It took the original 70s series premise and shifted it into the now. A re-boot that both made sense, and extended the original ideas. Characters were introduced carefully and with a decent back-story. Good sci-fi that you wanted to watch. All in all a truly excellent start to a show. Well done.

Seasons 1 and 2

Grumpy Old Man

Unfortunately that heady start was not maintained. Almost immediately the scripts and plots began to meander, not knowing quite where they were heading. Unsure between fixing on a story-a-week idea, and a grander concept.

Political and religious themes were introduced, but given such wafer-thin treatment that they were hardly worth mentioning. Certainly not handled on a serious level.

Certain currents ran throughout but not sensibly (50,000 survivors with a huge press corp; an ex-convict taken seriously as a presidential candidate; a clearly psychotic traitor - yes, you, Baltar, given more and more credence and power) It was a world that made sense only if everyone was congenitally stupid.

Not to say that all things were bad. The sub-plots involving the Caprica-bound Helo and one-of-many Boomer was well done; in complete contrast to the obvious sports-jock fling between Anders and Starbuck. But the original attacks of the Cylons, the breaking of the truce, the Cylon skin-job in-fighting and angst (given they'd just wiped out billions) never really explained. No rationale. Overall a big disappointment given what came before.

Fit Cylon

Season 3

The toughest to get through. I know several people who gave up at this point, and I almost joined them. We start well enough with the occupation of New Caprica, but the subjugation and rehabilation of the survivors is too quick - collaborators one week; Galactica soldiers the next.

The episodes became tedious - Baltar's trial and acquittal too unbelievable. Tyrol and Starbuck's weekly personality changes. The Lee, Kara, Anders triangle too re-hashed. Themes introduced and dropped willy-nilly. But I stuck with it, and towards the end we at least seemed to be heading somewhere. The apparent death of Starbuck (who was convinced though - let's see hands) and then the final reveal ... four of the final five out in the open.

Season 4 (or Season 4 plus the Final Season in the UK)

Not Quantum Leap Cylon

In some ways I think this is my favourite season after the pilot ... although things were dropped and introduced rapidly, we were given a conclusion and an ending, something which we're often denied. And the actual ending? Well, it was exciting even if not entirely convincing.

The final showdown between the humans and renegade Cylons against the remaining Cylons was fairly well done, and then we finished in a final sort of way.

Not the worst show I've ever seen, but as sci-fi ... well, the political and religious themes weren't as well thought out as on Babylon 5 (which had an awful final season, and pretty dire concluding penultimate one); and never captured the joy or the comradery of Farscape (possibly the best of all sci-fi series ... had it ended at season 4).

Major Grumbles

My main issues lie around several, what we'd call, "changed premises":

Timeline

Cylon Jock

Maybe I'm a bit thick, or I've missed something but I thought this all took place about 50 years after the 1st Cylon war that both Tigh and Adama took part in. And at that point there were no 'skin-jobs'. Yet the Final Five were around on "Earth" 2000 years before. What? Man invented Cylons, so how was that possible? What's going on?

Cylons are un-detectable

(apart from by Centurions, or other Cylons, but not by other skin-jobs - i.e. a Cylon will spot Anders and back-off, but the others won't; apart from when they are revealed, when they will - clear?)

Stubbly Cylon

So we know Balter was talking doo-doo when he was building his Cylon detector, and even when they conveniently declared "this aint a Cylon cos their DNA is the same as when we last recorded it" (yes, I know). But in essence these things are identical, down to DNA level with humans.

Conveniently Introduced-late Cylon

Apart from in those episodes when Athena can stay out in high radiation longer than humans; or when they need to navigate large FTL jumps, when she'll hack open her arm and pull a piece of metal out of it! Like - they never spotted *that* on the tests, eh? I mean, I can understand why these things happen, but it does insult your audience a bit when a few weeks later you're talking about skin-jobs being identical to humans. It's shoddy, and not something that makes a show great.

Changed Personalities

Chief. Chief Chief. Lee. Lee. Lee. Starbuck. Starbuck. Starbuck. 

Not-a-Cylon

And why does Tory become instant "bad Cylon" when she finds out; yet Tigh barely change at all?

Here, there be Angels

So, if we can get over the fact that Baltar acts constantly and consistently like a lunatic - talking to himself; being shifty; acting suspiciously, we eventually find out that he's being guided by an angelic Six; whilst his Caprica Six is being guided by angelic Baltar. And although these angels are sub-standard (appearing only to one person) we then get Angel Thrace, who is a fully-interactive, drinking, swearing, fracking, human. Except she aint.  Nor, it appears, is she leading mankind to their doom. If she did, then it was when she led them to "Earth" as after that, she was dead. So that wasn't their doom was it? No. It wasn't.  You can't trust hybrids clearly.

Earth/"Earth"

Drunk Angel

Okay, he's my biggy. You recall in Season 1 when a number of the crew were magically transported to Earth? And the reason they know this was Earth, and the Earth they were looking for ... well, it was because this planet looked up at the heavens at the constellations of the zodiac. The twelve star signs that were the basis for the 12 colonies. So that meant (and we did see those constellations) that this hunk of rock was this Earth here. The one we are currently on. Given that, howcum when they arrived at the ashened, nuclear-wrecked Earth they were seeking, and had been guided to; and the one they recognised as being their Earth ... howcum it turned out to be some other planet. The "BSG-Earth" and not at all our Earth? Our Earth of course is where they ended up on. A planet they had clearly never seen before, but one which was our Earth, and quite a recent version given the positions of the continents. So, they were teleported to BSG-Earth, travelled to it, yet it wasn't our Earth. They ended up there later. Yet it *had* to be our Earth, due to it's stellar location. So, in Season one, BSG-Earth was our Earth. By Season 4, we'd given up on that idea. Poor.

Jessie J

Hendrix

So, if they ended up on our Earth, and I'm guessing the idea is they seeded life here, then the Hendrix they were listening to wasn't our Hendrix. So, this "all this has happened before, and will happen again" is very literal. Unto each generation a Hendrix is born. And a Dylan. And they will write and cover a specific song. Makes you wonder why you bother, eh?

In summary...

Generally, a lot of the acting was good, especially from Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnell, and Tricia Helfer. The rigour of military life and command was also well handled in the most, and there was a nice 'reality-grime' to life on board. They were well-defined if fickle. And it ended. Never discount the value of an ending.

Personally, I thought that it would turn out that *everyone* was a Cylon. And this was a re-enactment they went through as penance for the destruction of an entire race. That would have been a nice twist.

Overall, enjoyable, but not the great ground-breaking show people would have you believe.