Man-ln-Black Reviews

A Ghost Story (2017)

Please wait before writing a positive review

[1/10 · 13 February 2021]

In going through the positive reviews, lamentably after I wasted time on this, I notice that even the positive reviews don't have that many positive things to say about it. They are all, invariably, all a spin on: "It's good, BUT", or "It's good, EXCEPT", or "It's good, IF"

Watching this made me want to go and burn all my sheets in case I died soon. I know I'll never touch a pie again, that's for sure.

Look, good films are just good and generally do not require a disclaimer, so on behalf of all of us who've wasted time on this time suck of a bad film, please wait before you leave a positive review. Thanks.

-18 stars out of 10

Whispers (III) (2015)

I'll Raise your Real but Negative Review with Two Fake Positive Ones

[1/10 · 19 June 2017]

By now the desperate attempts at deception from the filmmaker to get you to watch have been made pretty obvious by a few "real" reviews, but it seems that a few people keep falling for the amped-up fake thumbs and ratings.

Trust me when I tell you that this movie IS THAT bad and that every single positive review has been left by the same person.

At RedBox, I think they pay out half of what a rental costs, so I guess morals are bought and sold cheaply. As it turns out though, you are able to now actually find clips of this "Whispers (2015) Movie" and see for yourself the reactions of others and better yet, the disaster this film really is.

The film is in effect, so god-awful bad, that the director, Tammi Sutton should stick to what she knows best such as writing fake reviews fo-, oh wait, she's pretty terrible at hat too.

American Gods (2017–2021)

Visually Magnificent. Is it perfect? No, but it is pretty damn close.

[9/10 · 19 June 2017]

I was a huge fan of the book so when it was announced that American Gods was coming to television, I could hardly wait. I wondered how they would incorporate and meld all the details into its intense and vast story, and bring it on to the small screen. For the most part they have done so brilliantly.

The story sometimes moves at a slower pace than in the book and those who are not familiar with the book may get antsy because they don't know the great stuff that's coming. They want it all now, but will eventually learn that it is only building its punch. The story is not a cookie cutter one -- if you need things explained to you, or if you re uncomfortable with things which are too "new fangledy" this may not be for you.

The negative I see in it, and whether one is for or against the series itself, there seems to be a general consensus across the board on this, is that it is indeed coercive with its political leanings and would seem to want to put them on a platform and give them center stage. I don't appreciate that. The gratuitous sex is at times too much as well. Who'd have ever thought I'd be saying that, but one thing is book sex, another in your face gratuitous and lengthy, sex which adds nothing to the series. We get it. She's the god of love, but at this point the way she is portrayed, she could be the god of fking - nothing more. I hope the producers realize as much and tone it down.

Louis C.K. 2017 (2017 TV Special)

Incredibly boring

[2/10 · 14 April 2017]

If there was ever a TV episode/show/special/program that SCREAMS: "I have absolutely nothing new to bring you, but I need money", this is it.

I mean it. There was not ONE 'joke' that was funny. NOT ONE. People, listen to me here . . . NOT a single one.

I felt bad for the people in the audience, and there were many, for having to sit through that live. In fact, the camera hardly panned over the audience I imagine because most of them were staring, face blank, and wondering what the heck they were doing there. (You do get a couple of unintended side shots of people squirming in their seats).

Anyway, I know that people here will do what they want and they may not believe the negative ratings, but I'm trying to do you a favor here. This is one turd you should definitely skip, and if you don't, that may actually be the funniest part of this all.

I am being generous giving it a 2/10. It really was that bad.

::EDIT:: As an added note, I left this review no more than three hours ago and figure it was approved about an hour or so later. So far, it has racked up three thumbs down. That ought to tell you that the CK camp is out and about pushing out those ratings. Don't fall for it, and if you do, don't say I didn't try to save you money and time and angst from sitting through this stale and tedious so called comedy routine.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)

Borrrring

[3/10 · 13 April 2017]

I just don't get reviews anymore. I used to agree with many and my taste was kind of in the mainstream. Movies like this though that have an 8 rating and really, are pretty terrible in every way, I just don't get.

The action is okay if you are into impossible fight scenes where the hero seems more like terminator than human. The ridiculous ways in which the hero survives each attack are way over the top. To add insult to injury each scene is dragged the f out until it seems like forever, including the scenes where he should just walk in and pop someone. Nooooooooo. He holds an 8 minute dialogue with them. How is that good, especially when it is Keanu and some other no talent actor or actress on screen with bad lines thrown in to boot? It's frickin torture. The acting is excruciatingly horrific. Not one of the actors made it seem real. The lines are just laughable but not in a good way. The only thing positive is the dog.

The movie honestly felt like it had been written by a ten year old or as if someone came through and dumbed it down, way down for its target audience (which judging from most of the reviews, it seems to have reached). Picture this (and no, it doesn't count as a spoiler because I'm paraphrasing): you have guy 1 talking to Wick and asking: "You're going after Santino Gregorio Mariano D'Antonio?" *overly shocked face*. Santino D'Antonio? Really? His sister by the way is G'ianna D'Antonio. Ridiculous names which someone thought would sound badass and cool. I bring it up, because that's the entire premise of the movie. A bunch of scenes taken from your favorite movies in the past, tweaked a little and thrown back in, in a comicy, hokey fashion. The only person who acted a little more naturally and seemed to deliver their lines (or maybe just had better lines) with some reality was Laurence Fishburne. He just seemed to be having fun with the whole thing as in WTH am I doing and aw, just go with it.

Again, the only thing that was worth seeing was the dog, oh, and Lance Reddick's toned down performance. Always perfection. Other than that, I really don't get what all the hubbub is about because it was just plain dumb.

John Wick 1 was immensely better.