Reviews written by registered user
the_frog_princess

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
11 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

16 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Good points and bad, 2 February 2010
7/10

Before listing the numerous bad points I have to say there is one point about this show that is so amazingly good it almost makes up for the bad ones: it demonstrates with no doubt whatsoever that nearly ANYONE CAN BE ACTIVE no matter what their weight. A good deal more active than most people believe is possible. This is so important. It shows that change is possible. It also shows how people who do eat well and exercise can accomplish amazing things well before they reach their goal weights, that there are rewards for changing your lifestyle throughout the journey, not just when you reach that magical number you've been striving for on the scale.

Among the bad points are the cheap psychoanalyzing that goes on, which appears to be more for making drama moments than actually accomplishing anything constructive, product placements (especially for products one strongly doubts the trainers actually encourage the contestants to use), the necessity for some contestants to lose more weight than is healthy in order to win, and raising unrealistic notions of what constitutes an appropriate rate of weight loss or level of intensity of exercise would be safe for viewers at home without strict medical supervision.

7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
eclectic pre-literate educational entertainment, 13 November 2001

Blues Clues is a fun little educational show which covers many areas of interest. In some shows mathematical concepts, such as shapes and relative weights are covered. Others introduce concepts in art and music, or general skills, like determining the proper order in which to do things in a step by step process. Still others emphasize behavioral issues: responsibly caring for pets, dealing with fears, frustration, and frustrating individuals, to name a few.

Steve, the sole live action individual in the show, is a warm, non-threatening individual who manages to project a gentle enthusiasm without sounding sappy and saccharine. I was sorry to read that Steve Burns intends to leave the show, but can understand it for myself. There must be some point where one would want to throttle someone if forced to sing "We just got a letter!" one more time.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A wonderful send off of the Superhero genre, 29 November 2007

I am perplexed at why this is rated so low. The only thing I can think of is that many people who rated this movie were expecting to see something else. The most tuned in audience for this film would be people who really enjoy comic books and/or superhero shows and are intellectual enough to appreciate the absurdity of them.

I understand that there was a Mystery Men comic before this. However, going in to see this movie because one liked the comic would be the wrong reason. It may be great for the same reason the comic is great (if it is great--I don't know. I've never read the comic), but unlike Spiderman, X-Men etc, it's purpose is not to look like the Mystery Men comic but to spoof others of the genre.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A marvelous retelling of the Beowulf epic, but very violent, 3 September 2003

I have not read "Eaters of the Dead" so did not experience any of the disappointment voiced by those who have. Instead I was able to appreciate it for what it was as opposed to what it was not.

I only have a couple regrets:

Why Antonio Bandaras? Now I like Antonio in general. He's a good actor and mighty easy to look at, but would it have been so difficult to cast an Arab as Ahmad Ibn Fadlan? It was so refreshing to see an Arab character portrayed as a force of peace and civilization. So often the Moslem world is shown as the opposite.

LOTS of violence. This one is definitely not for the kiddies!

Daredevil (2003)
I want my time refunded., 8 September 2003

I don't say that about too many movies. This one was just plain bad. I have seen some good comments here from people who read the old Daredevil comic books. Maybe this is because it was exactly like a poorly written comic? Very little plot, very little character development. The premise was intriguing, but in retrospect (after wasting precious time watching this garbage which could have more entertainingly been spent picking lint from my navel) one that would have been nearly impossible to achieve convincingly. Still, it's amazing how much time and effort a motion picture studio will pour into the kind of mind-blowing special effects that would be impossible for one person to create on his own in a whole life time than and yet put no more thought and effort into a storyline than a monkey poking at the keys of a typewriter for a couple hours. Hmmmm. . . Make that a blind monkey poking at the keys of a typewriter for a couple hours.

A Man for Hanging (1972) (TV)
Maybe I just don't get the whole film noire thing., 31 July 2001

I found the movie supremely pointless. The camera work was uninteresting and there was very little character development. By the end of the movie I was still unable to tell the members of the posse apart. The only mildly interesting character was the bad guy played by Peter Breck, and the details of his personality, aside from enjoying killing lame horses, beating/raping young ladies, and having an insane laugh most of that was only hinted at.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A cross between Baby Herman and Ow! My Balls!, 30 June 2011
8/10

This is how I described this movie to my kids when I suggested they might like to see it, Baby Herman being something they saw in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Ow! My Balls!" being a fictional TV show in the movie "Idiocracy" which described a future run by complete idiots whose greatest form of entertainment is watching someone get his groin smashed again and again. The description appealed to them, and they ended up loving the movie.

It's one of those movies that you either love or hate, not because of the quality of production or acting or script, but because you either like this kind of humor or you don't. More importantly, though, this is a nostalgia movie. It is NOT a baby version of Home Alone, but has it's roots back in the days of black and white cartoons, and people who didn't grow up watching the catch-the-baby-in-peril episodes of Tom and Jerry or Popeye cartoons are not as likely to enjoy this movie, which doesn't really have much more of a plot.

However, if you DID love those old cartoons and don't mind the addition of multiple blows to the groin for the bad guys, this is a VERY well done live action version of that old art form, with a baby cute enough to inspire the same kind of "Aaaaaw!" reaction as produced by footage of fluffy kittens playing.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Bless You Adult Swim!!!, 30 July 2003

I had avoided this show for a long time, because in preview it looked like it would be a lame rip off of the Simpsons. Boy was I wrong.

Superficially it looks very Simpson-like (animated family, two older kids, dog) but the construction of the plot lines is vastly different. I love the use of flashbacks and the little oppositions set up (the parents talking about worrying about the kids wholesome development while dressing up for a session of S&M)

It is absolutely hilarious, and absolutely NOT for kids. I'm pretty sure that's why it wasn't so successful on FOX (do they work the word penis into every episode?). That and they kept playing musical time slots.

Now, however, Cartoon Network is showing it in their Adult Swim lineup, and I understand it is their highest rated show. It's on late at night when the kiddies are in bed, and in a place people tune in to watch adult oriented animation. It doesn't hurt being on right after Futurama (another excellent show that Fox time slotted into oblivion) either.

Red Planet (2000)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
I wanted my time refunded, 15 May 2007
2/10

This started out looking promising but disappointed. There were some really interesting ideas which could have made a great story if somebody who knew anything about story writing had written it and more convincing actors had played in it. The gosh oh golly of the tech was insufficient on it's own, and I'm a big fan of gosh oh golly tech. There were no particularly likable characters. There was nobody to identify with.

The movie has the feel of many 1950's science fiction novels written by people who actually knew a fair amount about science, who had very creative vision of what future and alien technologies could hold and the implications that such technologies held for society, but no idea of plot. Unfortunately they focus so heavily on the technology they lack anything of interest in the storytelling department, and what is passed off as a plot is merely a set up for displaying the next bit of gadgetry.

Dragon Fighter (2003) (V)
0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
This is so-o-o-o bad, 4 January 2003

I knew right from the shower of identical evenly spaced boulders at the beginning that this was no work of cinematic genius. I did not suspect how bad it would get.

It's difficult to say which was worse: the graphics, the acting, or the script. Okay, I lied. It was the script by a long shot, but then if one counts the story separately from the script. . . no. Even then, the script wins out.

The characters were one dimensional, and introduced conveniently for you. Here is the amiable new security chief who is smarter than he looks (actually, I still don't believe that. The writers just gave him good hints about what to do and made the rest of the characters, against all probability, immediately perceive him as intelligent) Here is the evil doctor with the unidentifiable accent. Here are the (mostly) useless, personality-free females.

It's too bad. It was an interesting idea. Just very, VERY poorly executed.


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]