Reviews written by registered user
|698 reviews in total|
As a separate series, Season 2 is a good series. Having to follow the masterpiece which was Season 1, Season 2 is beyond a reasonable doubt the lesser of the two seasons. Here are the five reasons why. 1. The Cast. Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson both gave brilliant performances. They alone carried the series without having to rely on a good story. With Season 2, Colin Farrell and Vince Vaughn fall short in comparison. Sadly, Colin Farrell gives one of the better performances in his career, but still can't compete in the same category as McConaughey and Harrelson. Vince Vaughn has typed cast himself too many times in goof ball comedies to be easily accepted in any dramatic role. Rachel McAdams is a good supporting actress but can not lead the cast in order to make it a success. Unlike Michelle Monaghan, McAdams brings secy back, but is an empty character even with all the back story the series tries to give to the audience. 2. The Location. The Louisiana backdrop is more exciting, more real and more intriguing that La La land. California may enjoy the backdrop of LA as a unique setting, but not for the rest of the country. The attempt to make the city a character as much as they made Louisiana fell short half way through the first episode. 3. The Music. Although good, the soundtrack of season 2 is a far cry from season 1. The opening credits was something that audiences had never seen or heard before. Season 2 was a recycle creation from the first and not as good. The soundtrack is also a reflection of the show's characters and setting as it speaks for itself. 4. Flash backs and Time period. Season 1 showcased the story line in the mid to late 90's and the present day. With the wardrobe, props and hair styles, it was a fantastic depiction of the two decades. Season 2 has minimal flash backs and has none of the impact that Season 1 gives. 5. The Crime. Audiences were hooked after the first scene in Season 1. The stage had been set as the Viewer was on board with the investigation and the mystery that surrounded it. Season 2 lacked this. In fact, it took a few episodes to entrench it's audience to stick around for all eight episodes. Overall, both seasons has its merit. Then again, Season 2 is a different show entirely when comparing it to Season 1.
Itsi Bitsi ("Steppeulven" original title) is the story of the rise and demise of Danish Musician Eik Skaløe. The movie does a fair job capturing what life was like for the youth of the 60's. Sex, drugs and music is the setting for this story. Unfortunately, having been released in 2014, Americans are finally aware of the movie's existence. The reason for this is Actress Marie Tourell Søderberg. Soderberg attracts a specific audience from her beauty and sexual attraction. She does fill the element of eye candy as well as the muse for Eik Skaloe. If you were to eliminate her from the movie, Itsi Bitsi, sadly, would have a much smaller audience. The movie is artistically breath taking and appealing to fans of the genre. At sometimes, the movie is hard to watch with its real (in your face) subject matters. Still, the exit of the nudity and sex scenes would erase any huge audience. Having these elements in the story are a saving grace and gives hope to telling the story of a forgotten Artist by the name of Eik Skaloe.
The only spoiler I will mention in this review is that some actors will actually be in a movie just for the pay. I guarantee that The screenplay for this unfunny comedy did not draw a pool of talented actors to want to make this. Then again, I'm sure an easy paycheck drew half of Hollywood to the set for The Brink. It is sad to see two amazing actors like Tim Robbins and Jack Black lower themselves to junk roles. Although they have both acted in off beat comedies before, they have not worked on a project as bad as The Brink. Robbins and Black have worked together on several projects before since the early 90's. Both have worked on serious subject matters as well as off the wall, far out comedies which only attract a certain audience member. All comedy is different, then again, most comedies are funny. The Brink tries to be funny but falls short on so many levels. For starters, The Brink depicts the America military and government as the butt of the joke by being incompetent and down right stupid. How Many Americans want to see that? It's on thing to make Dr. Strangelove and have the audience faced with a real question while entertaining them with satire. The Brink is no classic and far from original. Much of the dialogue is pointless and the acting is sub par. Much of what we see from Jack Black is recycled garbage from past movies. I understand it's the summer and the audience is less than half the size from the rest of the year. But still, this junk should not have a place on a cable network let alone HBO. It's the worse show HBO has produced in the last twenty years. Even the reality taxi shows are more original and entertaining that this bunk.
Lifetime has made millions showcasing women as victims. Whether it be one of their many awful depictions of a female character who falls in love with a "man" that turns into a serial killer, Dance Moms gives Lifetime another chance to entertain their all female audience with a cast of awful women they can look down at. The star of this disgrace is a large wilder beast. She yells at a group of underage girls to be perfect. I find it ironic that this fat woman is telling skinny girls how to dance. These girls aim for perfection but end up becoming jaded as they cry and fall apart when they fall short and lose a competition. On the sidelines stand their out of shape, unattractive and talent- less mothers who agree with the abuse. Sometimes these failed parents complain as they grand stand for being somehow more moral than the rest. The 200+ pound dinosaur is justified for her actions when she wins the girls countless competitions that most people have never heard of. Do a google search and you will see hundreds of competitions (dance) in this saturated market that makes millions of dollars from young girls and their idiot mothers. This is not an example of Whiplash where students are being pushed to perfection for the sake of Art. This is nothing more than a Train wreck of a spectacle. These girls are exploited to be ornaments (wearing very little clothing and wearing enough makeup to make them look like adults....parents - please questions this) for an industry where vanity, greed, envy and pride are rewarded with empty trophies. What female audience would not feel empowered after watching this spectacle? Good job Lifetime, you did it again.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Although the story takes place mostly on the Appalachian Trail, much of the documentary covers very little about it. This is a story of three youths who have put themselves on a path in life. The journey bring the three together as they attempt to search for themselves and to see where their travels will take them. In one way or another, they each accomplish something. Whether it was what they thought they would do is another question. Beauty Beneath the Dirt tries to show a coming-of- age story but instead shows how lost young people can be. As the case for Kate, some are more lost than others. All the characters express anger and disappointment in life. Others learn to deal with love and lost and everything else in between. This is all apart of growing up. We make friends and we lose them. People grow apart while others build their bond of family. All in all, the documentary falls short as the main protagonist takes too much time away from the journey of the hike to showcase her inner demons to the audience. In the end, there is little beauty beneath the story due to the in-your-face dirt that the characters throw at one another.
For all you Critics out there who gave a negative review......wah! Is The Boy Next Door, Gone with the Wind......no. It is far from a masterpiece and is never trying to be something that is "Best Picture" or "Best Movie of the Year." Then again, it has accomplished what most Hollywood movies with a budget of over 50 million can't be....a good story. If you know what to expect from The Boy Next Door, then this movie is worth watching. Filmed on a low budget, it will successfully make a profit and make some good and bad news in the press. I only wish there would be more good discussion than bad. I would not consider this a "Lifetime" movie. For starters, most of what Lifetime makes is crap. The Boy Next Door is better in its story, its filming and its acting. The movie does fall short in certain areas, but who cares. This is not an epic or a movie that is trying to change the world. The audience who wants a sexy thriller is going to be very happy with this movie. Where are the Critics that will mention everything good about this movie? Director Rob Cohen did not have 100 million dollars to work with. Instead he took a modest budget and showed that he can direct. Jennifer Lopez, 45 years young and looks sexier than ever, still delivers a worthy performance. Ryan Guzman and Ian Nelson show amazing talent. Both were unknowns until this movie. Because of their performances, both have long and successful careers ahead of them. John Corbett once again takes a chance on a low budget (My Big Fat Greek Wedding) film and comes out with gold. All these actors signed onto a project with a taboo theme. All of them took a big risk when they signed onto this movie. They believed in the production and took a chance. That reason alone should have Critics giving credit where credit is due.
Every film maker or anyone who wants to be a film maker needs to watch this documentary. The journey of these Characters is true to not only the people they portray but the industry in which they choose to be characters. Kingdom Come does a perfect job showcasing the struggle in the independent film world when it comes to making (funding) a movie. A large handful of brilliant and blunt interviews creates a wonderful and important story for all film students to study. This is also a good warning for anyone who are looking for Investors for your movie. The world is full of sociopaths and psychotic losers that lie in order to be apart of the "film" world. Viewers beware! The Journey of this film maker has been the same journey that thousands of others have and will make when wanting to film their dream. Watch it and learn.
Lorne Michaels deservingly owns late night on NBC. Since the 1970's, he has built an audience of millions of fans in multiple generations to tune in. Now with the Carson era ending with the departure of Leno, Late Night is changing and the goal of Lorne Michaels is to kill it! From the very beginning with Steve Allen and Jack Paar, the audience was made up of 40-80 year-olds who would drink coffee at night, eat cheese dip and fall asleep on the "lazy boy" with their curlers in their hair. As goes the demographic of late night, so goes the overall TV audience. The Baby Boomers grew up with Carson and inherited Leno and Letterman. That demographic is now in their 60's and are fading away. Many are starting to watch something else. The new audience that make up the large majority of Late Night TV will be the SNL crowd. Youngsters who are staying up late and anyone younger than Jimmy Fallon. The older generation has been shown the door for the most logical reason, TV is changing. The days of only having 3 channels on the television set have been forgotten. With hundreds of cable stations, pay per view, and the internet, the television audience has shrunk. The majority of fans that watch a certain show are no longer watching it live, but are watching it online the next day. Therefore, the audience of the future and the rating systems is going to change. If something great happened on Late Night on Tuesday, I'll watch it online Wednesday morning while on the way to work. With that said, the Jimmy Fallon Tonight Show can't be compared to any previous host of the Tonight Show. Much like Leno replacing Carson, it was a completely different show. For TV's new audience, you have 6 full nights of Saturday Night Live. And for the audience of old, you still of Letterman for a few more years.
Is House of Cards worth watching 13 hours to enjoy 10 minutes of good story? The fans of Dexter gave the series the benefit of the doubt that the series will end on a good note and all the unanswered questions and all the characters will get justice in one way or another. With that said, the large majority of Dexter fans felt cheated that years of devotion ended without a proper ending and a list of characters and story lines that went no where for no reason.....the same is starting to happen to House of Cards. Why are we introduced to multiple different characters who are introduced, have some part of the plot and then are quickly removed from the story? Does this have to do with the overall storyline, or are the Writers starting to realize that they have no idea where the story is going? This may sound strange, but, look at what happened to Dexter. The story went in circles until it finally ran out of gas. House of Cards has had a lot of movement and things are progressing in the main characters lives, however, do we need to see Frank Underwood eat ribs multiple times to see the ribs joint go out of business and the storyline with that character goes nowhere for no reason and has no real major issues with the plot? TV writers need to evolve to the needs of the current generation that want all shows to mirror Breaking Bad. No loose ends, no empty conclusions, everything is connected and makes sense why we are watching a certain sense or introduced to a new character. Otherwise, one by one, fans will start to change the channel and watch something else.
As a fan, this was a hard movie to watch. As a critic, it was even a harder movie to watch. Edward Furlong has had a roller coaster of a movie career. Many big budget successes and low budget failures. In his support, Furlong gives a great performance, one of the better in the last 10 years. Sadly, since the movie is a low budget horror film that tries to be a fantasy, science fiction, witch craft, paranormal, and then other things all rapped into one, its hard to take anything about this movie seriously. Shawna Waldron has made a career of always giving 100% to every role she takes as well as brining legitimacy to every movie that she is in. As a fan, I hate to see waste of artistic talent. Shawna brings an audience to this movie but sadly loses members along the way. It is true that a low budget can hurt the quality of a good movie. Stitch is a perfect example of this. The story in itself may have worked but falls short with its over use of low end special effects which reminds the audience that they are watching a love budget horror movie that is aiming to be more than it is. I think the movie would have been better with less computer animated graphics. The movie has its moments of scary images, but with a lack of interest in taking the story serious, we are left with a movie that leaves us awkward. The casting of Tiffany Martin added to this. Both Waldron and Furlong both look like they can play 25-35 years old. Having their daughter in her early to mid teens did not do much for the realistic factor. I think the odd casting overall hurt the movie even though Waldron and Furlong both delivered good performances. Then again, I think they had very little to work with.
|Page 1 of 70:||          |