Reviews written by registered user
baconbit

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

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

"Sing It!" (2016)
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Fine Bros. need to remember why they are on YouTube to begin with, 3 June 2016
1/10

I watched the free episode when it came out. Or at least I tried to. Couldn't bear to watch more than 5 minutes before realizing that YouTube made a huge mistake in banking on them to be one of their launch titles for their paid service. They need to remember that they got on YouTube in the first place because they failed miserably at actually writing. They found their niche on YouTube by not having to write, but not they are screwing that up by alienating their fans by forcing ads for this garbage down their throats before every video.

And seriously...an American Idol spoof in 2016? Oooh! So timely! That'll show 'em! I half expected to hear characters greet each other with "Wassssuppp!" because the last time an American Idol parody might have been appropriate, those beer commercials were still going on. And then there is the cast. Full of washed up has-beens. People who haven't worked in years. And I hope Debbie Ryan realizes the irony of her appearing on a show that is mocking bad singers. There is a reason why she hasn't done anything since her little Disney show. The only thing worse than her singing voice is her speaking voice.

Can't wait for YouTube to pull the plug on this. Or for the Fine Bros. to take a look at their upload history and see that EVERY one of their scripted videos gets like a quarter of the views of their React ones. Maybe then they will realize that writing is not there thing.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
butt ugly washed up has beens + bad writing = why?, 12 June 2015
1/10

What is the point of movies like this these days? Why would anyone want to watch these washed up has beens that did NOT age well, trying to act (badly) to badly written scripts written be people who actually think they have some sort of comedic talent? If we wanted to see these women naked, why wouldn't we just go online and see then when they were actually somewhat attractive (well...come of them we never attractive) ACTUALLY having sex and not hurting our ears with their talking?

Sorry girls...you should have saved your money when you were still in demand, rather than snorting it up your nose. But just because you are in your 30s and realize you have almost half a century left to live and no way of making money now doesn't mean you should force people to sit through your inanity. No need to watch you to PRETEND of have sex (unless the guys have 10 inch tongues, they are licking nothing but air) when in 3 minutes I can watch you actually having sex if I want. Or better yet, HOT girls doing so.

10 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Note to writers: Viewers hate clip shows!, 10 February 2014
1/10

IT is unfathomable that Larry David thought it was a good idea to treat the much hyped and highly anticipated finale as a clip show. Clips shows are the most hated episodes of any series. Sure, in the early days of TV, it might have been useful to catch new viewers up on what they missed in past seasons. But prior to the finale, Seinfeld had been on at least twice a day in all cities in syndication. Everyone had seen these clips hundreds of times already. And to make things worse, prior to the finale, NBC aired a 1 hour CLIP SHOW. So Larry David gave us a clip show followed by a clip show.

Granted, that was not the only reason why the finale was awful. The concept of the finale was awful. Even if such a law existed, expecting unarmed civilians to try to stop a mugger with a gun is ridiculous, even by Seinfeld standards. And for a show that claimed to be about nothing, this was the most convoluted sit-com plot ever.

But had they simply had all the previous guest stars come back for the trial and just TALK about the old episode, without actually turning it into a clip show, I think maybe the reaction to the show wouldn't have been QUITE as bad. It still would have sucked, sure. But it wouldn't be widely regarded as one of, if not THE worst series finale in TV history. And it earned that distinction.

Clear History (2013) (TV)
32 out of 131 people found the following review useful:
What's the point?, 10 August 2013

If Larry David wanted to make something EXACTLY like Curb Your Enthusiasm, why not just make another season of Curb Your Enthusiasm? Sadly, not only was this exactly like Curb Your Enthusiasm, but it is exactly like the later (terrible) seasons of Curb Your Enthusiasm rather than the first few seasons. JB Smoove ruined CYE and he ruined this movie that should never have been made in the first place.

Mr. David...stick to half hour comedies. You have now attempted to make a feature length film twice in your career and have failed miserably both times. And if you insist on acting, then stick to playing yourself or at least a fictionalized version of yourself like in CYE. Don't bother trying to play someone else since every character you play is exactly the same person...you.

No, seriously...do you want to know how bad this was? Think Seinfeld finale bad.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Painful to listen to, 3 March 2013
3/10

This movie was just painful to listen to. No, not just because the audio sounds like it was mixed by a bunch of third graders, thought that is a huge part of it. The audio levels were so harsh that is like hearing nails on a chalkboard for 90 minutes. (With Natasha Gregson Wagner's voice being just plain shrill on its own.) But there is also the constant talking over each other. To some extent, that adds a little realism, but it is overdone and just makes the movie hard to listen to. But even THAT is not all. There is also the ridiculous dialogue that was clearly written by a pretentious writer who is trying to make himself seem intelligent, having all his characters use big words and phrases that NO ONE in the real world uses. And with that, there goes the realism. But I guess that is why they threw in the semi-graphic sex scene. To try to get some buzz and take away from the rest of the awfulness of this movie.

It imagine here were a LOT of walkouts in this movie, 1 March 2013
1/10

There is nothing at all to like about this movie. Joey Lauren Adams shows that it is not just her voice that is like nails on a chalkboard. While Adrian Grenier shows off the horrible acting that became so famous on Entourage. All the while the director was confusing annoying with interesting. I can't imagine too many people sat through the acid trip without getting fed up and walking out. It was annoying for the sake of being annoying. All with no payoff to redeem it. I just can't imagine what anyone was thinking making a movie with such a prolonged act that was literally painful to listen to. Which would have been bad enough if the ENTIRE movie wasn't also painful to listen to. IT was as if the audio was recorded in a toy microphone with harsh audio levels.

I would literally prefer to sit through 2 hours of nails on a chalkboard that this movie.

Margaret (2011/I)
4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Painful to watch., 8 January 2013
3/10

There are parts of this movie....many parts...that are literally like being in a crowded room with everyone talking at once. And all of them have extremely annoying voices, and are talking too loudly. I never quite realized how annoying Anna Paquin's voice was before watching this movie, but after seeing this, I can't watch any movie she has been in before. To make things worse, it seemed like each scene got more annoying than the last. It honestly made me feel physically ill after seeing this movie. They could play this movie when they are trying to get cults or evil dictators to come out of their bunkers. It would end the siege within the way too long 2 1/2 hours of this movie's running time.

Nosebleed (2008)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
pure crap, 15 November 2011

One of those "Look! It's weird so it is good!" pieces of garbage that people claim to like because they think it makes their film taste superior to others to like crap.

Just because it is the quality of that of a high school film project (that got a C-) doesn't mean it is art or that it is worth watching. This truly is the kind of garbage you seen on YouTube, only without the annoying metal music so prevalent on YouTube.

Perhaps the only good thing you can say about this movie is that it is the best work David Arquette has ever done in his life. Not just best movie. Not just best entertainment job. It is the best thing David Arquette has ever done in his life.

But it is no big surprise that Jeff Vespa has not graduated onto real movies. Sorry Jeff...You are about to turn 42 and you haven't made it yet. Time to give it up and join the Bloomingdale's management program.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
What were they THINKING?, 20 October 2011

This is where Eddie Murphy's career ended and why actors should never just cash a paycheck. This is honestly one of those "What the hell were they thinking" movies where everyone involved should have KNOWN was a disaster from the beginning. I would have understood this more if Murphy did this AFTER the Foxy Brown scandal, but he still had a chance to revive his career after his flops like Harlem Nights, Distinguished Gentleman, etc. But this just drove him down more into the abyss that was Nutty Professor and Daddy Day Care.

Where to start? Well, how about the awful musical/dance number at the chop shop? Horrible forced humor that wasn't funny. Or Axel Foley trying to figure out how to operate Serge's superweapon. More unfunny forced humor.

And since when is Axel Foley some sort of superhero cop? Jumping from car to car on the ferris wheel? Give me a break. Why do movies feel the need to turn ordinary people into superheros? (I'm looking at you, Live Free or Die Hard with John McClane's helicopter stunt.) And I haven't even gotten into the ending where Uncle Dave...a man in his mid-70s...is shot in the stomach and expected to die, yet apparently makes a full recovery before a man in his early 30s (Axel) is still recovering from a superficial gunshot wound, and Flint is also still in bad shape despite a simply shoulder wound.

It seems fitting that George Lucas would do a cameo in this movie. He was the king of destroying great movies in the 90s.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
terrible directing, 17 January 2010
4/10

I can get into all the other reasons why the show failed, but I don't necessarily agree with many listed here. No one watched Mythbusters for the science either. At least no one with ANY science knowledge. All these shows are entertainment with a science element.

But the problem with Smash LAb is that it failed in both science AND entertainment. It was impossible to follow due to the terrible directing. Most obvious was the over use of super slow motion. Smart directors know how to use effects to the benefit of the viewers. For one thing, always have the first cut be at normal speed. That allows viewers to see what happened as if they were there. It also shows the full impact of a collision, or speed/acceleration of an object, or whatever they were trying to show. But with Smash Lab, just as they got to the "pay off", they started with the slow motion. And also the repeated angle changes. It never allows the viewer to actually focus on what is going on. And then they show the same 5 seconds over and over again from a different angle trying to make it appear as if it is continuous rather than a repeat of the same action.

It really makes you wonder how directors are able to actually receive paychecks if they are so clueless into what makes good entertainment.


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