Reviews written by registered user
|28 reviews in total|
I've been on this earth for a very long time, watched and rated well
over 5,000 movies and shows and I have to say that this is the worst of
dregs. After the first 5 minutes I could tell that there was nothing in
this that anyone over 20, whose seen more than what is on a cell phone
screen, could possibly find amusing. So then I went to the reviews and
found all the glowing ones, rating it 10 stars and saying you have to
watch more than the first episode. So I went back, watched the full
first episode without finding a single funny element, and then forced
myself to watch the second with the hope it would get better. Sadly it
The characters seem to be literally copied from Red Dwarf, Futurama, Mystery Science Theater 3000 and even a Zaphod Beeblebrox from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is thrown into the mix. Although not exactly copied as they forgot to include the comedy. The dialog is stilted and poorly written. It seems to have been directed by cell phone, and I don't really blame the actors for their very low level of acting as I suspect they were directed to act horribly. I even have a hard time seeing this labeled as a "comedy" as there is absolutely nothing comical about it. And those saying "lighten up as it is meant to be satire and you miss the point," I say that even satire has to be well acted and directed and actually have a point.
The only laugh I had in watching the first two episodes was when they were all holding up their "weapons" and they actually were the exact remote temperature measuring "gun" that I own, with a little piece of plastic glued to the front. Even the props and costumes weren't up to the standards of most community theater companies.
Something else is fishy about the reviews. At this time there are three pages and the first half of the reviews are all 1-3 stars which is where I see this dross. But all the following reviews are 8-10 stars and from 500 to 800 characters. To me this makes those reviews suspect and I will be interested to see what later views have to say.
This is without a doubt the worst show I've ever encountered.
I've always felt that "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was the hands down
winner of the worst movie of all time contest, until I saw Kiara. Bad
voice work, bad script, animation that would have been state of the art
in 1939, and I couldn't make any kind of sense of the story. I've rated
over 4,000 movies here at IMDb and all I could think while watching
this trash was, "is there any way to give a movie a negative rating?" I
know there isn't but if one could this would surely rate a negative 10.
I actually grabbed it on NetFlix thinking it was the Pixar movie "Brave" and really felt stupid for being duped by the title. Than a couple of days later our adult daughter came home with it from RedBox to watch with our granddaughter and I pointed out that it wasn't "That Brave" she was a bit sheepish, but I felt a bit better learning that it wasn't just me being taken in by the title and cover art.
Use your time more productively, do anything but watch this dross.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'd watched this program in the hope of learning just a bit more about
this horrible period in human history and how people could devolve to
the point of making a lampshade out of human skin. Unfortunately there
was little information that I'd not heard or seen on numerous
Here lies Spoilers: The final result that the lampshade that was the object of the entire show, and was dragged halfway around the world and back, and studied by multiple laboratories, wasn't even made from human skin. So the title of the show, which dragged me into watching it, was pure fantasy and the show was was a waste of my time. Very disappointing.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
There was so much wrong with this show that it all couldn't easily be described in less than a few thousand words, so I'll leave it to others to point out the USMC errors and plot holes. I expected a thriller, maybe with a touch of humor; as Damian Lewis does wry humor as good as the best. I'd hoped for something more likened to his character in "Life" but come on: an affair, a manic/schizoid CIA agent, every cliché in the Lazy Director's Handbook, and absolutely brimming with soap. It is not my cup of tea. I was looking forward to a good thriller when I heard that Damian Lewis and Mandy Patinkin were in it but was sorely let down. I won't be watching more than the first episode.
First I have to say that I couldn't watch more than a half hour of this
drivel before I decided to quit wasting my time and moved on to
something productive. These "100 m.p.h. carburetors" have been tested
over and over again by real scientists and they do not work. This is
all wishful thinking. The S.A.E. (Society of Automotive Engineers) have
tested them, car industry and enthusiast magazines have tested them,
they've been tested by universities, and over and over again people
have wasted their energy testing them; and one thing comes true every
time. They do not work. And, there is no more oil company conspiracy
than every day business practices, which can in themselves be evil, but
not in this case. Water injection, in very minute amounts, has been
proved to work to cool the charge but it has little bearing on mileage,
only the efficiency to burn, almost unmeasurable, cleaner. But can you
imagine having water injection in Duluth Minnesota where it gets to -50
f. in the winter? Give me a break.
It is interesting that in talking about the "Buick that got over 100 miles per gallon" they show the patent briefly and a Compressed Natural Gas tank only for a moment without explanation. It appears that in this particular case the CNG is used in the process and that compressed air is also used. The problem with that is this "documentary" (term used lightly) does not take that into account in the claims of high mileage. Compressors to compress both the air and the CNG run on electricity, making tanks to hold them takes energy, the CNG itself is just another form of petroleum distillate and none of this seems to be taken into account in the claims. It is obvious that the producers of this movie went into the project with the sole intent of proving a conspiracy, rather than with an open mind, and nothing, even facts would not keep them from their goal.
I watch a lot of documentaries and this has to be, without a doubt, the worst I've ever seen. Not only for its lack of science, but the filming, the choice of interview subjects, the editing... I can't think of one thing positive I can say about this movie. If you are a conspiracy theorist you may like or even love this movie. If you have any knowledge of science you will hate it, and if you are in the middle you may be duped into thinking this stuff might be true, which it is NOT. Stay far, far away from this movie.
The pilot for "The Good Guys" held some promise but one had to wade through the dross to get to it. Acting, photography and sets were up to network standards but the story itself had more holes in it than the socks I threw out this morning. Having someone fake puke to clear a room of detectives and C.S.I.s was beyond lame. There were a few parts of the show that were mildly amusing and if one is capable of suspending disbelief entirely then it could be a fun romp, but I believe they could have a hit here if they kept things at least in the realm of reality. The real world just does not even closely resemble the world in which these characters reside. I'm willing to give it a second chance though so my DVR is set to record the next episode.
I was surprised that some people think this show is a dog and deserves
to be scrapped, that the scripts are unrealistic and this stuff could
never happen in the real world. I think they are missing the point. Ask
yourself this: How many dramas or any type of show can you name, in
television land, that even mention philanthropy? How many promote
giving of oneself? How many shows inspire the normally uninspired
masses to even think about what goes on outside of our fantasy land of
Sure, this show has unrealistic plots, portrays a myopic view of world issues, has obvious product placement, and other faults but that is what pays the bills. Without these things this show would never had been made or even hit the airwaves and if it changes the life of even one person, especially one from the class of nouveau riche, it will have done a service to humanity. Sure it is flawed but there is enough truth to it to bring people back and maybe change their lives. It is all about the message, not the messenger. I do so hope NBC will let this one live.
I'd just recently discovered the "Lone Wolf and Cub" series and having
just watched all of them I found them to be some of the best of the
genre that I'd ever encountered. I watched them in Japanese with
English subtitles and found every one of them to be exceptional. When I
saw that "Shogun Assassin" was based on the "Lone Wolf and Cub" series
I was excited to see it, but oh what a letdown it turned out to be.
Some hacks have taken the original series and cut clips out of each of
them, then re-edited those clips into the most god-awful movie I've
ever seen, and then claimed to be the "writers". I knew that something
was off as soon as I saw that Retsudo, from the real series was shown
as the "Shogun". In the originals he was the head of a clan who had
stolen the post of royal executioner from Ogami Itto through deception.
In the original Daigoro (the son) hardly ever speaks more than the word
"Pa", yet in here he is the narrator. The dialog is just plain insipid
and has no relationship to the original story. Skip this worthless
dreck and find the original "Lone Wolf and Cub" series.
In reading all the glowing reviews I have to wonder if they were written by friends of the people who put this together, or by people who have never seen the original series or other great Samurai series such as the Zatoichi movies or other greats of the genre.
Very good actors, but one of the worst productions of Agatha Christie's
works I've seen. The soundtrack tried to add to the feel of the period
but only helped to make the film seem "dated". I've only recently
re-discovered Agatha Christie as I had read only a couple of her books
as a child in the 50's, and I've now been devouring all the works
NetFlix has to offer. I've especially enjoyed Joan Hickson as Miss
Marple and was looking forward to seeing one of Agatha Christie's later
works having been released in 1961.
I was so very disappointed in this "made for TV" movie as it was full of cliché's, miserably wrong music, incredibly bad direction and was one of those movies where I want to yell at the characters on the screen, "How can you be that stupid." I've not read the book but it appears that this could have easily have been an exceptional movie, but instead I felt that my intelligence was being assaulted more and more by the minute. The ending was a huge let-down. What a waste.
"In Enemy Hands" is one of the worst WWII movies that I've ever seen. I
can imagine that the original script must have looked good enough for
William H. Macy to sign on, but I can also see why this was not
released in theaters. Bad editing, worse directing, over or rock bottom
acting in abundance this movie has it all.
With so many true stories of the submarine services that are loaded with drama, why would a fictional story like this even exist? Even William H. Macy, who I usually like, acts like he is being controlled by puppet wires. The real Swordfish sank twenty-one ships and damaged another 8 before being lost at sea about January 12, 1945 with 85 men lost. Her first patrol started the day after Pearl harbor, she evacuated many officials from the Phillipines and delivered supplies to Corregidor so with the amount of actions she saw there would appear to be no reason to turn her ending into a fictionalized turkey.
I find it very unfortunate that people who watch this might think this is what life was like for WWII submariners.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |