Reviews written by registered user
uszoninyc

Page 1 of 19:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
182 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

A terrific 2nd season episode guest starring the lovely Ms Jane Merrow, 29 September 2017

I love Alias Smith and Jones. I love both Messrs Duel and Murphy.

This episode adds Ms Jane Merrow, who I loved since I first saw her on Danger Man (in the states it was known as Secret Agent - the song; Secret Agent Man - was added as the state-side opening theme) love 'Jane Merrow' (qv).

This episode brings back terrific character actor, JD Cannon (as 'Harry Briscoe') of the 'Bannerman Detective agency ( the Pinkerton agency).

I can only hypothesise, but, it seemed, at this point, the 'powers that be' of the series were beginning to fall back on a steady, repeatable bunch of actors, and plots, in this case, being Harry Briscoe's (mis)adventures.

Be that as it may, the series was still riding on great actors, and good plots, and into this, they added Ms Merrow as (the questionable) 'sister Isabel'.

Ms Merrow's previous work on Danger Man (as well as The Saint) were not comedic roles, but, her role here, as the sister-on-the-run, enabled her to have a bit of humour, as well as pathos.

The 'boys' - Messrs. Duel and Murphy - are, as always, terrific (I heard that Mr Murphy always looked for the 'magic' he had with Mr Duel in this series, sadly, never finding it again).

I did not see this series when it initially aired I wasn't born yet 😉), so, it's 'weird', in a way, as I'm sure I'm not the only one, who watches, looking for .'something' in Mr Duel, which shows how sad, and depressed he was. I know - it's not how ANY show, should be watched. I can also guess that Mr Duel would not want anyone watching to be maudlin - he'd want to do one thing; entertain, and on this count, he - and the show - most certainly does.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Painful! So unbelievably awful, the level of humour is below a 5-yeat olds., 19 September 2017

I 'cut the (cable) cord' about 5 years ago, and it's been wonderful.

Each day seems to bring even more choices, more options for what I wish to watch.

One streaming channel I have is Hulu, and because the channel was initially founded by several TV networks, Hulu had access to a lot- of what had been top-rated shows, and what is currently 'new'.

I just saw something entitled Bob's Burgers. It's never seen it, but, by the vagueness of the show's general outline, I decided to give it a shot.

Now, let me tell you; I did all kinds of things funny, add long as they're funny. Saying'dirty' words for no reason, other than'because we can' is not only ridiculous, it's infantile, and shots a lack of creative ability.

I put on the first episode - entitled 'Human Flesh'.

This is'our' - the viewing audiences initial chance to get a sense of the creators talent, and this means we get to see what it is they think the viewing audience would (happily) spend time - week in, week out, season after season.

The'creative team' behind this wants this premiere to be the best possible, in story, and animation.

For those old enough to remember the 'limited' animation style of late 70's, and 80's cartoons, and yearned for the days of Warner Bros. Loony Tunes, and didn't think animation could get ANY worse, guess again.

There's an old saying; give 100 word typewriters, and over of them will type or a story.

Well, give them 100 animation stations top work at, and the 99 out of the 100 - there work would STILL be better than this nightmare.

It seriously seems like the thieves who make this - somehow convinced network brass of their skills, and even when this Technicolor vomit was first screened to them, they STILL asked it to air (f-x will put ANYthing on the air, other than a network sign-off).

The opening of this - the first episode, introduced us to the main characters, which happen to be a family named...'Belchers'.

I hear the sound of water doing in the deafening silence.

O-kay, so, it seems this series' 'creative' talent is below snagging a peak at their older brother's Playboy magazine, but older than someone who finds everything about the word 'booger' hysterical.

But not by much.

The titular Bob is standing behind the counter of his family's owned and operated diner/burger joint, and he's telling the assembled family (his wife, who's choice actor is probably the least talented, as he - yes, a man - makes no effort to even sound vaguely'woman-like', and I think there's 3 kids, ranging in age from about 10 to the late teens (it's very hard to tell. The animation artists who drew this debacle have difficulty in drawing people of different ages).

A Bob's explaining the 're, re, re, re, re, re-opening (hysterical...) He turns to (what he identifies as his) ten aged daughter (though, other than his saying so, the animation, and voice work - another man, doing the choice of this 'teen-aged girl', are so snubs l abysmal I'd be willing to bet if anyone was just given a look at a cell of this character's artwork, NO ONE would be able to tell), and tells her she's the'grill cook'.

To which she replies.... her crotch had been itching.

To hammer home how'hysterical' this moment is - a man doing the voice of a (supposed) teen-aged girl, who's... crotch is itching, the 'teenager' says it REPEATEDLY, and to add to the'guffaws', we get to see 'her'- scratching 'down there' (though the seem censors apparently thought it was 'too much' too not just have an animated teen-aged girl -with a man's voice - describing this, they had the'good sense' to have the animated 'crotch' cut below the bottom of the screen), so all we viewers get - to see - is drawn teen-aged girls hands vigorously rubbing'down there', with the sound effects of(what sounds like( someone rubbing a shag carpet.

That this was the first minute is bad enough. That the network brass said 'keep making more' is scary, that this garbage has- somehow - found a brain-dead audience large enough to have the network continue to suit this, asked how far, and how FAST society's FALLING.

it goes without saying this... turd' is brought to air by that joke of a network; f-x

Made by people who just want to make money off the original, 2 September 2017

A(mother) AWFUL 'remake' of a film.

TO 'RE-MAKE - is to redo, I.e, 'update make, au-courrant.

I'm NOT 100 years old, nor close to it, however, I saw silent films as a kid - and understood them), than ls to my father.

I saw the ORIGINAL Out Of-Towners, on late night TV (remember?) and loved it.

I ALSO work in …media, and whilst I DO understand 'maikng money', and 'updating' material (i.e., 'property') for a 'new' (i.e., brain-dead) market, I DO NOT get dumbing-down.

This is a perfect example of why 'remakes' are utterly WRONG when made by IMBICILES.

If anyone reading this remembers (is SMART enough to) the original (no, I don't care how old, you are, you recall the following;

A man from the Midwest gets a job offer, and has o travel (with his wife) to NYC.

They board a plane, and things go wrong from there.

The plane gets diverted, luggage is lost, their reservation's lost, they end up in Central Park, and he (Jack Lemmon) is (almost) arrested for child molestation,and more.

That was the synopsis of the (original) 1970 plot.

Now - almost 30 years later, let me ask you;

- Do planes STILL get diverted? - Luggge lost? - How about reservations - they never lost?

So, to be honest, not much has changed (oh, the prices HAVE gone up, but, what else is new).

Instead, the makers of thIs garbage think that by taking the 'bones' - an then putting up on it totally new 'skin', they can come up with a 'yuck-fest', and keep the title.

NO.

This is pure - unadulterated GARBAGE.

The Nightmare (2015/II)
Gosh awful, low-budget nonsense, 31 May 2017

The technological evolution were in - which started a bit over a decade ago, has wrought massive changes.

Once, and for those of us old enough to remember - it seemed no one would ever be able To come close to, much less, on par with, the technical quality of 'professional' media.

In simpler terms, no one would be able - given (the tech we had) be able to make a. Obie, documentary, etc, at home - with local talent, and no budget - that would ever come close to the sheen, and shine of what the 'networks', or the 'studios' could put out.

A lots changed - not all for the good - in a very short time.

At this moment, I must put 'my cards on the table', as it were; I work In the industry - the 'legit', or 'major' film studios are my bread and butter. Saying this, I also want to mention I find the overwhelming level of quality of releases - either in movies, or TV, to be below abysmal.

I could spend a My of time explaining why we're at where we are, but, I don't want to hire you, and - honestly, if I were to tell you, I would normally get a (substantial) fee for it.

But, where we are - where the technology is, is at a place where someone - with no real ability, no skill can literally make something which approximates 'studio' fare, and I'll use that as a general term to describe for anything - movie, documentary, etc. which is made by the 'average' person, rather than someone with either the money, and/or budget to approximate professional product.

In the 'old days' if someone was ... crazy, they had one option; to stand - usually in public, And rant. Anyone passing such a person could tell - from the obvious visual cues there was something wrong with this person. Whether it was the disjointed speech, or their physical appearance, or a combination of both, one looking at this could very quickly assume this person was not playing with a 'full deck'.

Now - in the second decade of the 21st-century, almost everyone has access to a computer, and with it they are able to go to any site, and comment.

The thing is, those shoes that were so readily apparent before – their appearance, their speech cadence, or whatever which would give an onlooker enough information to tell them this person is crazy, it's not there.

What that means is you can have two people commenting on any video on YouTube one person certifiably crazy, the other a professor from Harvard university, they both could write a paragraph, and the average reader of these paragraphs could not tell which one was saying and which one wasn't.

This has given rise to The insane amount of "fake news", and the paranoiac 'conspiracy". Stories which are rampant.

I said to some people in my industry, about a decade ago it'll be sooner than you think that someone will make a film without any help from one of the establish studios, and will have a number one hit. I still think that will happen, but in the meantime what has happened is dross like this; the Nightmare.

Along with the technological revolution, has come and inordinate amount of media outlets, and all of these require product new product. There's not really a huge number of cable channels there's a huge number of streaming TV channels and on and on and on. Each one of these require something new, something different, and what that means is the people who purchase stuff to be shown on these outlets - rather than being able to either have seen themselves most of what was 'out there' at any given moment, they're left with too much product, and too little time.

They buy things for their 'outlet' - be it a Netflix, or something similar - where they're basically buying 'blind', i.e., a distributor will show them a few, well-known. Well-received movies, or shows, and say; 'here's the deal; if you want to buy these 3 well-received items, you must take without - as a 'package', these 10 other, lesser-known items, as well'.

The buyer says to them self; 'I'm getting some quality things, and some 'schmutz' thrown in. Fine.

They put these (let's say for sake of argument) this package on their media outlet, which includes 3 terrific, award-winning pieces, and 7, unknown ... 'films'.

The average viewer - channel surfing - comes across one of these Munknowns', and reads the description (written almost always by the product's 'auteur'); 'an insightful, riveting, thought-provoking documentary. The 'big guys' don't want this out - why not? Why won't 'they' let us know? Here's your chance to see the stuff 'they' didn't want you to see'.

So, Joe and she q. Public watch this dross - and see it's (rather good-looking) quality, and in their mind, they wasted this with 'professional', not - as it should be, 'home-made by a crazy nobody', and they love it. They can't tell it's not a serious, well-researched, or even validated documentary. They think it's made by some 'courageous' people, and they tell others (like-minded) to watch it, and an underground 'hit' is born. The more anyone in a position of debunking it - being able to say; 'the film maker is a schizophrenic, who thinks aliens are communicating with him, and believes 60 Minutes Is actually a conspiracy, these 'averages citizens are MORE convinced; 'they' are out to get us.

That is pretty much the story for most of the things now being sucked up, and 'the Noghtmare' is just another - bad - one.

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
The latest new eposisode of the classic series., 19 April 2017

I'm a huge fan - both both this, and Star Trek phase II, The Voyage Continues.

I was initially wary of not 1, but, 2 fan-made series being of such high quality, but, this gang has happily corrected me.

Vig Mignona - the 'hyphenate' at the helm here (he's Kirk, and creator, and producer - you name it) does a terrific job of being a scene-chewer all of his own. If William Shatner's seen this, I'm certain he'd be proud, and laugh.

The crew here is terrific - some faces will be familiar - such as Sulu, is Grant Imahara of Mythbusters, and usually the guest stars are quite a pleasant surprise - here, the lovely Tory Foster, from the fantabulous Battlestar Galactica - is onoard, for this episode, as Kirk's flame, and the scientist, who help unravel the mystery of the plot.

Kepping it short; everyone involved - both in front of, and behind the camera - is here, because they love Star Trek, and they all deserve applaud, for making this series as high calibre, as it is.

Several episodes - such as this one - are tied to the original series - be it, a 'part 2', or, in this case, an...'alternate' to what was offered elsewhere.

A few months ago, I was saddened, when I read that CBS - the holder of © for Star Trek - had said they'd allow the fan shows to continue - but, they couldn't be more than 30 minutes, they couldn't contain any crew members, nor could they tell stories which reflect back on anything we loved.

I hoped then - and still am - that I heard it wrong. If I hadn't, I don't know how many more of these wonderful episodes, because, personally, I really dislike the latest 'alternate time-lime' films (not the cast - I hate the ship - BLECH! - and the stories), and this series and it's counter-part keep me - and many others -very happy.

I want Vic Mignogna & crew to have a continued, long mission.

Ted learns a lesson., 17 March 2017

Ted Knight was very sensitive that the character of Ted Baxter not be a one-dimensional cut-out, and this episode allows the 'real' Ted Better to shine.

In what's probably the closest way Ted Baxter ever learns the meaning of 'unconditional love', someone does something for him - with no strings, and though Ted - always out to get a buck, is more than happy to take it, I feel the underlying reason isn't lost on him.

For once.

Ted's (never seen) mother is seeing a man, and Ted - who only met his natural father once in 40 years (and who asked to borrow money) - is nervous about this unknown man.

When he finally does meet him, it's a very genial man named Walter Tewksbury, who introduces himself to Ted by telling Ted he's not out to replace his father, not knowing that Ted's father was never their for him.

It's what Walter says next and does, which has always stayed with me; he tells Ted if he ever needs money, he's there for him, and Ted - obviously overcome when he hears that someone is willing to give him money, gratis, is actually more touched by the fact that someone is doing something for him, simply 'because', and even though Ted is annoying, he is- deep down - a lonely guy, who acts the part of the extroverted 'Ted Baxter' to hide that little boy, who never had a dad.

Even though it's played for comedy, one of the great things about well-written comedy - of which The Mary Tyler Moore Show is one of the best -the show never shies away from the humanity of it's characters.

I know I'm not the only one who's loved this series for so long, because it's characters ARE so well-written, that they feel real, and A Boys' Best friend shows us that - even inside of the annoying, Ted Baxter is a real human, who always felt he was. Issuing something.

To paraphrase Quark; this episode IS a 'gift' for the viewers., 9 February 2017

Armin Shimerman, who plays DS9's barkeep, Quark, is worried. Business is down - way down. Just when all seems lost, a (very) drunk Klingon - the sole customer at the bar - demands credit, and as all Klingons are wont to defend their honour - even, here - when it's not necessary - and falls upon his knife, in Quark's arms.

That's the true story, but, sensing theirs potential for a big uptick in business, Quark tells Odo, and loud enough to all in attendance - that he actually killed the Klingon (D'Goth), in self-defence.

But, then, appears 2 people; the first, is the dead man's brother, Kozak, to whom Quark perpetuates the lie.

The second - is Grilka, the dead man's wife.

But, partially fearing her wrath if he doesn't come clean with her, and partially because, it's readily apparent, Quark is entranced by Grilka, he tells her the truth (a he gushingly says to her, after she's listed all those he's lied to; 'it's a gift').

Armin Shimerman is one of the best actors in an ensemble cast, which is full of very talented actors, but, what sets Mr. Shimerman's performance(s) apart, is when one realises the limitations he has, working underneath the massive amounts of prosthetics are doing, it's even more amazing.

I give the same 'bravura' to all the cast members, who do so much, with so little - facial expressions, that is.

The prosthetics these folks wear covers their foreheads, down past their eyebrows - so, one of the most expressive parts of a face (human, and otherwise!) - are not seen.

This means they're left to rely on nothing talent - something he, and the others do, with aplomb.

This episode is a tour de force for Mr. Shimerman, as well as Mary Kay Adams (Grilka) - the object of Quark's affections.

These 2 characters - who seem so mis-matched, are, in fact, perfect for each other.

As DS 9 is single-handedly the most dark, sombre of all the Star Trek series, each year, there's always a couple of episodes which is played strictly for laughs - which given some of the 'heaviness' the actors (and, us the viewers) allow a chance to relieve some of the tension.

This episode's about love - both the main, 'A' story, as well as the 'b' (Cheif O'Brian's attempts to help his wife Keiko). Additionally, it's also about the very deep love Rom feels for his brother.

The House of Quark is a fun take-off on (several) Shakespearean works - as it involves people pretending to be what they're not, and 'forbidden love', i.e., a Ferengi, and a Klingon, and all-in-all, it shines a funny, well-written terrifically acted light on one of DS9's best characters, and the actor, who embodies him.

A terrific sequel - makes up for N°2., 7 February 2017

I just saw Phantasm 3 for the 1st (yup!) time, and one of the reasons is I'd seen the 2nd film, a (long!) whilst back, and was do turned off, I didn't feel like moving ahead to the next film.

What a pleasant surprise!

The 'hyphen'; 'director/writer/creator', Don CoscarellI, got his groove back on, and made what's a fun, road-trip-type film, with a wonderful threesome; Reggie, the young boy, Tim, and Rocky, a young woman, who's army-trained.

I give the creators, and stars of this film kudos, because they could've made a(nother) clichéd film - and had they dine so, it would've really killed Phantasm.

However, this straight-to-video film shows that it's NOT the amount of money spent on a project, it's TALENT, which makes a difference, and this is a film which should show ANY up-and-coming film maker that you do your W-O-R-K - get a good (decent 😉) script, and actors who know how to act, and you can actually make something which will easily be better than ANYthing the horrors, made by such no-talents as Bey, or any 'actor' who's 'talent' is equated with a price tag.

A social thumb's up to both Ms. Gloria Lynne Henry, as 'Rocky', and Kevin Connors, as 'Tim'. I hope that the work they both did here would pay off with casting directors.

If you're a fan of these Phantasm films, and felt let-down by N°2, I hope you give this film atry, it's well worth it.

Love Going In Style, with George, and Art..., 28 November 2016

There's a saying; 'those who can, do, those who can't teach…'

I'll come back to this in a minute.

Going In Style's a film, in a style I love; it's a terrific 'caper' film, but, this time, instead of the usual types of crooks, i.e., the ex-cons just outta the joint, who wanna make one big score, or the group of misfits, who are brought together by a central character, but, each member has their own hidden agenda(s),, it's 3 men - 3 old men, who find sitting on a park bench, quietly - 'enough activity' for one day.

When I grew up, I was never a fan of George Burns - it seemed the media made him out to be a monument to longevity, and Mr. Burns, being no fool - gave them what they wanted (and he got the cheques!); the sweet, slightly lecherous, geriatric grandpa-type - in a tux, with a stogie in mouth.

Mr. Carney had done the Honeymooners, and though I never enjoyed the series, I always found Art a very interesting actor, who wasn't given too many chances to show what he could do. The previous film he excelled in - Harry and Tonto - was made 5 years prior (then, again, Hollywood doesn't give ANY actors - esp. those over 40, and especially women many leading roles, so, I know it wasn't Mr. Carney's not wanting to work).

The 3 actors are 3 men, who all have very different takes on what it means to be 'older' in New York City.

Joe (George Burns) is bitter at his lot in life. Al (Art Carney) is the 'middle' - he tries to be jovial, but, there's an underlying pathos. The last (and, to me - least) of the trio is played by Lee Strasberg, as Willie - he's really almost a catatonic shell - so burnt out - either for real, or just doesn't give a rat's behind, he's (mentally) off in the æther - former feeding the pigeons, until it's his turn.

Now, Mr. Strasberg founded the Actor's Studio, in New York City, and many illustrious actors were associated with it - and the 'Method' (style acting), including Marlon Brando, and (ah!) the supremely under-appreciated Marilyn Monroe.

Mr. Strasberg's appearances in film, or, on stage are very limited - and though some may say this was because he was 'busy training actors', my personal feeling - of his talent are very limited.

Back to the opening quote; that's a direct jab at Mr. Strasberg. Though I truly enjoy this film, I think the one thing which weighs it down is Strasberg, and I thank the editor's for making his non- performance as least irritating as possible (in 'Method' acting - the 'Cliff notes' version, the actor has to have 'motivation' - understanding for everything about their character. I know I'm saying this very simplistically, I don't want to bore those not interested. What many critics of this style of acting used to say was they ('Method' actors) were 'mumblers', they spent so much time getting 'into character', that, most of the time was just 'frou-frou'.

True, there were/are some very brilliant performances, but, by-and-large, I think that if one were to weigh 'great' against 'poor' Method performances, the scale would be tipped heavily in the 'poor' direction).

If one is - like me - someone who watches a film from differing 'aspects', i.e., focusing on one performance, during one viewing, etc., then when I'm seeing/focusing on Strasberg's performance, he literally comes off as a shuffling, mentally vapid old shell.

Now that I've told you what (I think) is the dross, I turn to the other 2/3rd's; Burns and Carney.

Burns does a delightful 180°'s on the 'old, lecherous, geriatric' he'd been playing for the better part of the decade, on various network specials. Here' he's foul-mouthed, and I love his disposition.

He's giving us the 'other side' - sadly, what's more the reality, for many older people, who are for better-or-worse - forgotten by loved ones, or outlived loved ones.

He's not 'happy' to be in his 'golden years'! He's not hanging out (as he is on those treacly network specials) with Loni Anderson (ugh) and Brooke Shields. He's angry, and boy, does he have a right to be.

He's left with $49/mo social security ($163.29 in 2016!) That's inexcusable, that someone who's worked their whole lives, and is only here for a short while longer, is left in such a sorry state.

In the middle is Mr. Carney' s Al, who - though not as outwardly angry by what's their 'lot' in life, as Joe, he's a bit more complacent, but, I see in his effort to humour Joe, a sadness.

He still sings songs from 'back when', he's trying to hold on - in a optimistic way.

The writing by Mr. Brest (who was a 'kid' - only 28 - when he wrote and directed this (!) is wise beyond those 28 years, in the writing - the character's 'voices' are so well shaped, and the direction is also good.

If you want to see a good film which shows just what all those people we ALL see sitting on those benches would secretly love to do, themselves, watch Going In Style.

You'll have laughs, and as with any competent 'caper' flick, plenty of thrills.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
A true crash-and-burn MESS! Truly, nauseatingly awful., 3 November 2016

The old saying about 'messing with a classic', is perfectly on display here.

'Re-booting', or doing a new version does NOT - rarely does - mean 'improved'.

This is something SO bad, that HULU should've demanded it totally be re-cast, re-shpt, re- everything, and had the people involved in this not just fired, but, forced to repay the money WASTED.

Hell; I'd take '''em to court, and shake them by their ankles, if need be.

The 'talent' - used in this true 'horror' are people who are so lacking in talent, they make up - in spades (full of sh-t) in their mugging for the cameras, their raging.... egos on display.

Tim Curry is in it, and whilst I'm sure the people behind this travesty thought it'd be a 'nod' to their 'homage', I'm positive he did it for the cheque.

Richard O'Brian - who wrote and starred in the original, as Riff-Raff, also must've said after hearing the synopsis, and seeing the money, 'this won't be remembered as anything more than a bad case of stomach flu, and he'd be right.

The idiot who plays Riff-Raff is some person who starred in the 'broadway (lower-case 'b' on purpose) show' (cough, cough, COUGH!) of a (I can't believe this) musical version of ... Spider man, the no-talent babbles (forever, it seems), in his (vanity-slathered, self-penned, 'natch) IMDb bio, about how he started in this thing. Now, it IS true 'big names WERE involved in it, however, this thing is GONE, and it only opened in 2013, so, that's not good 'staying power', and the whole thing was endlessly ridiculed, mocked - and worse (and there've been many examples of people with 'reputations' making some gosh-awful travesty - this is yet, another).

He goes on - in his self-penned 'ode' - about how he was destined from the beginning to 'act'.

'Cute' he might be - in a very fey, androgynous (yawn) way, but, cute doesn't age well - at all ('Whatever Happened To Baby Jane's a good example), and right now - his screeching whine could make cats commit suicide.

As for the others...I'd pay anyone who - without looking - could give the CV on them all - or even 2, because, they're not the 'Stars of today', and definitely not tomorrow .

I AM sad Laverne Cox from Orange is in this. She must've thought 'this'll gimme the chance to show my range, and versatility', whilst -sadly - the morons who made it must've said; 'she's a big name, and - oooh; how 'radical' to have a real transgender play one'!

Yipes.

The re-orchestration, of the tunes is more ego-run-rampant - by people who desperately want it known 'they did it', - and screw the music.

What it shows, in stead, is they've NO UNDERSTANDING of NO APPRECIATION of - the music.

The camera work's a joke - a perfect example, would be the Time Warp.

In this part, the only thing I found - not good', but, intriguing - was several moves done during the dance, but, unlike the original - or, ANY musical, for that matter - the camera is all over the place - it never focuses on ANY thing, for even 5 seconds.

Now, pick-cuts might be 'the latest' (it's not. It WAS - past-tense), but, it's NOT the way to show DANCE.

The bit which intrigued me, is the dancers would form shapes, and would pull, push, trust, almost like origami, being unfolded, however, it was impossible to either watch, or enjoy, because the camera couldn't stop!

The (literal) whiny, screeching by 'Spider Man'/Riff-Raff during this hurt my ears (NO; I'm NOT 'old', I'm 30, but, I DO have taste, and I do work in this business). Whereas Richard O'Brian would start the number off in a monotone, then change - to a different - almost shriek, and then the song changed styles throughout it's 2-3 minutes, this is done in JUST 2 modes; screeching, and annoying.

Some chick - the one who's supposed to be Columbia - looks more like that Harly Quinn in that film this past summer, I sh-t you not.

Save yourself, your ears, and eyes, and don't - DO NOT - watch this crapola.


Page 1 of 19:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]