Joseph Greeley

I like Liam Neeson. I really do. But boy does he get himself into some bad movies. And I'm fairly easy to please when it comes to movies. Much as I wanted to though, I just couldn't like this movie. For one thing, there was far too little of Laurence Fishburne. More importantly, for people on a time sensitive rescue mission where 26 lives are at stake, oh my GOD do they ever stand around talking when they should be MOVING. Apart from the bad guy's shenanigans, half the bad stuff that happens is because they spent too much time talking. "Oh look, the trailer's starting to sink through the ice. Let's spend three minutes talking about that rather than DOING SOMETHING!!" And for people who supposedly drive on ice for a living they didn't seem to know much about actually driving in icy conditions. Sorry Liam, but I have to give this one a solid D- So I was reading the other reviews and someone said "There are worse ways to spend an hour and a half." That is true. You could spend an hour and a half with your arm jammed down an ice fishing hole in the middle of a blizzard say, or hogtied in a rat infested sewer, or maybe staked out on an anthill. Oh! Oh! I know! You could spend an hour and a half skinny-dipping in a tidepool filled with fire coral! Yeah, those would be worse. But not by much.

I'm pretty easy to please when it comes to movies. I'm also easily distracted. If I don't end up distracted, it's a good movie. I didn't end up distracted. Idris put in a good performance as did everyone else. Is it oscar material? No, but who cares? It's an entertaining movie. Watch it.

I've been interested in Oak Island since I read about it when I was 10 years old. I think it's an interesting show, and I wish the investors luck, because it would be cool to finally figure out what's going on. At the same time, I'm surprised that the announcer hasn't had a heart attack given the amount of leaping to conclusions he does. What they've found is interesting, but by no means is it conclusive because as any archaeologist will tell you, context is vital. Take the cross for example. Okay, so it dates from the 14th century. That tells us nothing about when it was brought to the island. Had they done a proper excavation where it was found, they might have found an 18th century military camp, or a 19th century excavators camp. Without that, it's impossible to say when it was brought to the island. Yes it could have arrived there in the 14th century, but it's equally possible that it was a family heirloom that someone lost in the 18th, 19th or even 20th century. Likewise the soi-disant roman 'pilum'. I'm by no means convinced that it is a pilum, but even if it is, it was found on the shoreline and could well have been dredged up from the bottom of the Thames along with rocks and mud, dumped in a ship's hold as ballast and then dumped on the island when the ship was loading fish or timber. Again, without context any find is interesting but not in any way "conclusive evidence". As for the skull and crossbones being a Templar symbol . . . I don't know what that woman is smoking, but I'd steer clear of it. Anyway good luck Marty, Rick et al. I hope you find what you're looking for, but for God's sake. tell the announcer to take a chill pill . . . Oh, and if I hear the words "Bobby dazzler" one more time I will scream so loud you'll hear it on Oak Island.