PhxDwn

Terry Gilliam's striking imagery, masterful use of the wide angle lens, distinct camera angles, and his unique sense of humor (finely honed during his days with Monty Python) can all be found in Time Bandits. These elements are why Gilliam is one of my favorite filmmakers. There is no one else like him. I feel he vastly improved with his later films, but Time Bandits is still a spectacular experience.

A particular thing about Time Bandits that impresses me is the toys and pictures seen in Kevin's room at the beginning of the film are all represented with their real-life counterparts in later scenes. It's a brilliant touch. It's part of the movie's over-all theme of an imaginative boy, starved for attention due to his loveless, neglectful parents, who goes on an adventure through time. Did it really happen, or was it all just inventions of his imagination? The answer is not needed, but the question it raises is a touch of great filmmaking.

Also, Time Bandits should be commended for being the first, and one of the only, films to show little people as real people. They are historically exploited or stuck in silly costumes throughout entire movies, but here, they are given the chance to really act, and not be treated as glorified props. I hope Peter Dinklage of Game of Thrones fame holds great respect to Time Bandits, and acknowledges the doors this movie opened for little people in the entertainment industry.

I give Time Bandits a 7 out of 10. It's a good movie, but it doesn't reach the greatness that he later achieved with Brazil, Munchhausen, the Fisher King, and Twelve Monkeys. Still, for those who haven't seen it, it's definitely worth a watch.

One final note: most of the camera angles in Time Bandits are low. A perfect touch, considering the small stature of all the lead characters. Many filmmakers forget this with movies told from a child's perspective.

Lwaxana Troi is the absolute worst character in all of Star Trek, and Majel Barrett only got the role because she was the boss' wife. It's also how she got the role of Nurse Chapel in TOS. She was unlikable in that series, she is unlikeable in TNG, and she is unlikable here.

Yet the showrunners insist on using her again and again. Even after Gene Roddenberry passed, this obnoxious, annoying, horrible character still shows up, ruining every episode she's in and wasting the viewer's time. She steamrolls through TNG once a year, and now she's steamrolling through DS9 like a plague. Why did they insist on continuously using this awful character? Nobody likes her, with the exception of the few Star Trek sycophants who refuse to apply critical thought when appropriate.

In this episode she engages in grotesque sexual harassment towards Odo. It is clear that he does not want her advances, yet she persists. It's "supposed" to be comedic, but it's just another repugnant performance by a character that is both horribly written and horribly portrayed. It's an awful message, and the people who made this show should be ashamed of themselves.

Lwaxana is supposed to be an "ambassador." yet she possesses zero diplomatic skills. She just runs her mouth like the blowhard she is, and insists on getting what she wants without compromise, with selfish disregard to the words and wishes of everyone around her. This is supposed to be "funny," but it's not. It's just more despicable, unethical, and disrespectful behavior from a despicable, unethical, and disrespectful character.

I read that she appears a few more times on DS9. It would be best to skip those episodes. I'd rather see Wesley Crusher return, and that's saying a lot because he's the second-worst character in all of Star Trek.

Star Trek often gives the viewer excellence in story telling. Sometimes, though, it gives the viewer mediocrity. This is one of those times.

Star Trek has always suffered from very bizarre choices by the show's producers. Much of that is Gene Roddenberry's fault. Even after he died, his silly, arbitrary restrictions to storytelling remained.

This is an example of very poor television. Whenever TNG gives us episodes involving either of the female characters, they are often reduced to being love-sick twits. It happened with Troi (who was a criminally underused character), and here it happened with Beverly.

The other problem is the show starts with Beverly all of a sudden 'in love,' and her love interest is introduced out of the blue. No set up. No development. Just BAM, there he is. Lazy writing at its worst.

Then when the episode ends, even though Beverly and Riker both go through traumatic, life-altering experiences, the next episode starts with the 'magic reset button' that Star Trek is notorious for. If you're lucky, you might get one line of throwaway-dialogue that references what happens, but usually, it's completely ignored.

I have never understand why character continuity was rarely addressed in Star Trek. I have never understood why they couldn't do a better job at telling stories and having sub-plots across several episodes. It's quite possible to do that without having each episode run into each other, and it's quite possible to do that yet still keep each episode contained in its own story. It's also quite possible to let characters develop, change, and grow over the course of a series. Yet the producers of Star Trek always refused. Data was allowed to have an ongoing character arc. I don't know why he was the only character given that respect, but other characters should have as well. Especially Beverly, because Gates McFadden is an excellent performer, and she has always been well-loved by fans. So why treat the character and the actor who plays her with such disrespect?

Star Trek's show runners insisted on being lazy, and it's what prevented Star Trek from truly being great. They did improve with story arcs and subplots with DS9, but I guarantee had Roddenberry still been alive, that show would have been stuck in his little box, too.

As a result of this standard of poor, lazy storytelling and refusal to employ proper character development, Star Trek has always been a mixed bag for me. Sometimes, you get excellent television. Sometimes it's even some of the greatest television ever made. Sometimes, though, you get drivel. This episode falls into the drivel category.

Episodes like this are insulting to the viewer, and even more insulting to the actors. I know that I can't expect every episode to be a home run every time, but I wish they'd at least try. Reading about the behind-the-scenes of of the production reveals that the producers were constantly and purposefully hampering the storytelling. Why? Shouldn't the goal always be to achieve greatness? Mediocrity may be an easy mark to hit, but it's a waste of time for the viewer.

Let female characters be real people. Treat your audience like they're intelligent, because they are. Skip this episode. You'll be better off for it.