Reviews written by registered user

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

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Very ordinary TV show, nothing more than a novelty..., 25 July 2017

This show is really just another teen show, no different than a ton of other teen shows out there. The novelty is that it's a "modern" update of the Archie comics. If it wasn't an update, most people would write "been there, done that". You have tiresome teenage characters, except this time they are named after comic icons. There's your hook. Take away that hook, and there's nothing. Despite many critics praising it like it's the greatest TV show on our time, it's just very ordinary and not as clever as it seems to think it is.

Politically correct ranting, not comedy..., 10 April 2017

This is more of a politically correct activist show than it is comedy. It was very chic during the Obama years to push this PC stuff in everyone's face (and it was one of the overriding reasons the left/Dems lost the White House), and Kamau (who works for CNN and had worked for Current TV) is really a SJW masquerading as a comic. The show only ran for 2 seasons (which meant no one likes a lecture), and thankfully it won't come back.

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Bad movie..., 8 April 2017

The press essentially acted like this was the first film to have female leads in the history of cinema and insinuated that if you didn't see it, you were a bunch of sexist pigs. Sorry, trendy, PC critics, it's a lousy movie. Bad script, bad direction, and just a whole lot of obnoxiousness. There are other films out there with women in them (despite what the MSM tells you), so seek them out and don't watch a film that uses political correctness to guilt you into seeing it. If critics want to be masochists by making themselves like mediocre movies for political purposes, go ahead. But they can't force the public to follow their lead, proving, yet again, the public is much more intelligent than the critics give them credit for.

"Fargo" (2014)
9 out of 35 people found the following review useful:
Very dispiriting show..., 26 March 2017

I was never a huge fan of the original movie (I find the Coen brother's movies overly smarmy), but it's a humanistic masterpiece compared to this nihilistic trash disguised as a TV series. Most of it is ridiculously, pointlessly violent, almost on a Game of Thrones territory, where it seems that people get killed indiscriminately just to "sex up" the plot. Everyone on the show is a shallow, nihilistic piece of trash who has no soul whatsoever. There was an odd charm to the movie that is nowhere to be found in this TV show. The Coens had a flair for funny, deadpan dialogue (despite its smarminess) in the original movie, and the dialogue in the show is just plain nasty and ugly. It's nowhere as clever as it thinks it is. Here it's a bunch of characters acting all heartless and macho without any intelligence or comedy. Just pointless death after pointless death. Soon, they'll be nobody in Fargo because the writers will have killed everyone off.

And anyone claiming this is the greatest TV show ever made obviously hasn't seen that much TV.

189 out of 372 people found the following review useful:
Just OK...., 5 March 2017

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Some good production design aside, this is a boring rendition of the classic fairy tale. Do yourself a favor and watch Jean Cocteau's 1946 French version.

This is really a comment that I would normally post on the message boards, but somebody got rid of them :(

Get Out (2017/I)
64 out of 130 people found the following review useful:
Blech..., 1 March 2017

The positive reviews of this movie are simply praising it because of its "topicality" and nothing else. Esquire magazine wrote that Get Out is the best movie about slavery. Seriously. I though this was a horror comedy? Reviewers should stop being pretentious as hell and just watch the movie. All the self importance and PC virtue signaling over this film is vomit inducing.

And bring back the message boards!

Missing (1982)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Flawed but still fascinating (and quite grim)..., 4 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this film when I was younger and loved it. Seeing it again after many years, it's still riveting, but it has flaws in it, mainly the motivations of Charles, the man who goes missing. Why was he killed so indiscriminately? It was a pretty well known fact that the CIA and the US were behind the 9/11/73 (yes, the Chilean coup happened on Sept. 11th), and as far as the movie goes, Charles was never threatening to expose what was happening. There's even a NY Times reporter in the movie covering the coup, and she's never messed with. Plus there was a coup attempt a few months prior to the September one, and it (obviously) failed. The country was also in turmoil during the Allende years (lots of strikes, some local, some manufactured by the Americans), so the portrayal of Charles as a naive idealist strikes as false. Plus 2 other men who write for a left wing publication that Charles does are arrested, one is executed, the other is set free. So why was Charles considered such a threat? The movie never really explains.

Lemmon's character naivete works well (and it's one of his best performances). He's just a man who is looking for his son, and is outraged not only about his son and his son's fate, but of the sheer brutality (very well depicted in the movie) carried about by the coup leaders with backing from the US. Lemmon is a very proud American, so his beliefs are pretty much shot to hell by the end of the film, which shows the ugly side of US foreign policy. The official run around is in full swing and Lemmon's gets more and more infuriated at the lies and obfuscation of the US officials, and then it turns to fury as he discovers his son's fate.

A flawed but still great movie. As a man looking for his son, the film works wonders thanks to Lemmon and Spacek. As a political thriller, it works less well.

"Vicious" (2013)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Great show..., 6 July 2014

I watched the first few episodes of this, and found it hysterical. Many here (and some others) have said this show is terrible because its main characters are caricatures/stereotypes of gays, and I think that's silly. I've met gay guys like the two depicted here, so it's not all a "stereotype". I would also like to point out that Ian McKellen is gay himself (and has been out for years), and if Sir Ian thought this was a terrible show about gays, he wouldn't have done it. It's not like he needs the money.

Watch this show and laugh. Don't let the uptight PC crowd deprive you of laughs.

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Still relevant, riveting, and brilliant 35 years later..., 9 March 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This has to be one of the best espionage/political thrillers ever made. I have seen this film many times, and it never gets old. Despite the fact that I know how it ends, how it progresses, it is always riveting, fascinating, brilliantly understated, brilliantly acted, and superbly directed.

The film hasn't really dated at all. Many of the events it depicts did in fact happen, and while the film itself is not based on an actual assassination attempt on Charles de Gaulle, the film is certainly plausible and the film has a documentary feel to it. De Gaulle did pull out of Algeria in 1962, infuriating the far right wing in France. The steps taken by the French detective (played wonderfully by Michel Lonsdale) are as meticulous as you would expect from a detective attempting to save the life of the president of his country. Today if a film like this was made (in fact, this was remade as an awful film in 1997 just called The Jackal), it would have been filled with smarmy wise cracks, girls with enormous breasts, lots of bloody, unmotivated violence, CGI everywhere, actors/actresses with Botox, political correctness toning down some ugly truths about humans, and it would have twice as many cuts. The film, directed by Fred Zinneman (A Man for All Seasons, High Noon, A Nun's Story), is beautifully paced and very subtly directed. It's one of his finest films, and one of the best thrillers of the 1970's.

Macbeth (1982/II) (TV)
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Incredible film-making, one five minute take, and one sixty two minute take..., 11 February 2009

This is one of the most unique, fascinating films ever made from the Scottish play. The film was made for Hungarian TV, and it was shot on old fashioned, analog video. Yet Bela Tarr (one of the greatest filmmakers working today) made an incredible film. There are a mere 2 shots in the film. The pre-credits shot runs five minutes, the post credits shot runs 62 minutes. It's incredible that Tarr composed a 62 minute take, but that he does it so well, and you find yourself forgetting about the length of the shot, and are drawn into Tarr's world. Tarr is a master filmmaker, one of the greatest ever (certainly the best ever to emerge from Hungary), and this is one of his most fascinating films.

The film is available as a bonus feature on Facets's DVD of Satantango.

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