Reviews written by registered user
ToddTee

Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
63 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

"Scorpion" (2014)
105 out of 183 people found the following review useful:
Seems some reviewers take this far too seriously, 24 September 2014
8/10

Evidently several reviewers who pan this show as "unrealistic" have never seen any of today's mega-hit action movies. They are all "unrealistic", "over the top", etc. They make no attempt to be realistic. They focus on being FUN.

An LA Times movie critic called this show "ridiculous, but fun". EXACTLY!!! If you want realism, watch a documentary. This show is intended to provide entertainment, pure and simple, and on that score I give it high marks. All of the actors are archetypes of the character types that they portray, and at that they seem to me to all excel. They are no different than the superhero genre of films that are raking in so many $$$ at the box office today.

11 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Some things just make so little sense they're hard to ignore, 30 October 2012
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The premise is absurd to begin with, since not only does the power go out, but autos stop running, etc. Makes no sense.

Most of the story takes place 10 years after the power went out, and people are wandering around with not so much as a backpack, yet the men are always clean-shaven, everyone's hair remains neatly groomed and, though they never change or wash their clothing it remains clean; and isn't frayed after 10 years!! Makes no sense.

I've tried to like this show because some of the actors are capable, and do a good job, but the premise is so implausible, and the plots equally so, that I just can't watch it anymore.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A typical involving and involved storyline that keeps you interested, 10 November 2010
9/10

As with every episode of this wonderful (at least IMHO), involving family drama, the plot lines all read true, at least to those of us who grew up in the middle class. This episode follows the evolving romances of Crosby and Sarah Braverman, both not quite normal - which makes them oh-so-normal - and therefore most interesting, and the budding romance of high school girl Haddie, plus a few other minor subplots that carry over from episode to episode. There's none of the formulaic character to these plot lines, so you never know quite where things are headed.

As I've said in reviews of earlier episodes, so many of the things that happen on "Parenthood" are things that I've seen, heard of, or personally experienced in my time on this planet, which I can't say of many shows on TV. The more I watch the show, the more richly layered things become.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
It was great to see Ms Winger again, 1 November 2010
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The fact that Debra Winger is herself an actress who's been out of the spotlight for quite a while adds verisimilitude to her role here as the very same. Always an excellent actress since her breakout role in "An Officer and a Gentleman" and her magnificent performance in "Terms of Endearment", she adds to her acting chops here in the role of an aging actress --Winger is 55 -- who is not having trouble remembering her lines, and fears the worst due to her family medical history. Byrne's performance is, as always in this series, a mixture of understatement and fiery passion when he feels challenged. I'm looking forward to the further development of Winger's "Frances" in future weeks.

31 out of 38 people found the following review useful:
One of the few shows ever I'd class as "authentic", 26 May 2010
10/10

A new show with Peter Krause and Craig T. Nelson in the cast demanded at least a look, though if it weren't for the DVR I might have passed on it since it's on at the same time as the excellent "The Good Wife". Fortuitous indeed that I did because it strikes me as pure genius in writing and casting.

This show makes me laugh. This show makes me weep. Most important, it makes me smile in recognition of so many scenes that I recognize as things that happened to or around me. Of particular note along this line are the times in family "discussions" when everyone is talking and no one is listening. I don't recall another show that has done this, and it's sooo true to life.

The casting matches the writing so well that I can't imagine another actor in any of the parts. This show is definitely in my all-time top 10; maybe even top 5. Do yourself a favor and watch "Parenthood".

84 out of 137 people found the following review useful:
The funniest, most believable comedy in years, 19 November 2009
9/10

Because I have not one, but two, DVRs I'm able to give all the new shows a chance, which I did with "Modern Family". Am I ever glad I did!! I have found that everything about this show is believable. Though the situations that occur during any given half-hour show would obviously never all happen in that short a stretch, I have no difficulty in believing that they would all happen. I never feel that anyone's exaggerating to draw a laugh or milking a laugh. It's just the only "laugh out loud for the whole show" on TV today. It is, IMHO, the funniest show since MASH, and that's saying some.

There are some parallels to another of my favorites, the little appreciated "Arrested Development", "Modern Family" has its own unique flavor; and the flavor is . . . hilarious!!!

50 out of 72 people found the following review useful:
A pleasant way to spend 100 minutes, 5 October 2009
8/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The two parts of the movie are quite different and in some cases both parts may not appeal to everyone. The first part, which is just long enough for my taste had everyone telling the truth at all times about everything, with one notable exception. They equated the 1300s with the 13th century, which is of course not correct. But this likely won't bother many people. Seeing a world with nothing but the truth means no fiction and no "little white lies". Quite boring and brutal, really. The part that's poking fun at religion may not be some people's cup of tea, but I suspect that these are those not secure enough in their beliefs to allow them to be challenged, no matter how humorously. To see what Gervais does with a pizza box is nearly worth the price of a ticket.

All in all, not a classic movie, but a much better way to spend one's day than many of the other movies out there today.

People who comment about "factual errors" in a fictional comedy, 29 July 2009
8/10

Far too many people seem concerned that the author of a comedy set in the late 19th century - or any time, in fact - doesn't adhere to facts. Isn't that why it's fictional? Give us a break and stop reporting that the type of button on Joe Blow's shirt wasn't used until 1892 and this movie is "set" in 1878 and so the button can't be used. Try enjoying it as a comedy and not worry about this meaningless "stuff". Nobody but you cares about such minutia. The rest of the world is too busy laughing to care if Charlie Chaplin was really alive at the time of the movie, or the movie industry existed or Arthur Conan Doyle was ever a police detective for Scotland Yard. The movie was a blast, and these deviations from history are part of what made it so.

16 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
A show that deserves much more attention than it has received, 17 July 2009
8/10

The first season was OK, but the second season sparkles. The stories are solid, with usually three or four sub-plots that wrap up during the episode, plus the continuing story arcs regarding the major characters. Gosselar continues and improves upon his work in NYPD Blue. Gloria Reuben is her usual solid self. Jonathan Scarfe was a surprise to me, having never seen him before, while Currie Graham plays his usual sour but solid guy.

I'm less taken with Jane Kazmarek, whose character is neither nice nor nasty enough to be a treat. The supporting characters beyond those mentioned above all do an adequate or better job, with the two female attorneys -- one for the DA's office and the other for the Public Defender's -- provide eye-candy and do a good job.

The fact that New York City has no Public Defender's office, with that role taken by the Legal Aid Society, seems an odd twist on reality to have taken, given that using the proper group would not seem to have changed the show at all.

All in all, I look forward to each episode.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Too many inexplicable plot devices to be truly good, 9 March 2007
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

According to this plot an FBI agent and an NYPD cop spend all of their time performing (mostly) illegal acts on behalf of a private corporation performing highly illegal work involving kidnapping and murder. It bothered me throughout the movie. There is also the doctor, Jeff, who seemed pretty clearly to be doing things to help hide the same illegal acts, who, at the end of the movie is somehow miraculously NOT involved at all, with no explanation.

There are many good points to the movie, and Grant seems fine as a New York ER doc, far from his usual roles. Gene Hackman is as wonderful and believable as always, and David Morse has the cold, hard-bitten lawman down pat. All in all it was worth watching, but could have been better.


Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]