40 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
Indian Summers (2015– )
Like watching paint dry, but not as fun
4 October 2015
We have come to expect more from Masterpiece Theater, but this is so shocking dull I can't believe it was even encouraged. Someone must have done one hell of a sales pitch in a meeting to get this project green-lighted. It moves at a nail's pace and at the end of a 2 hour episode you feel completely drained and realize you just wasted your time. A re-run of Downton Abbey in Season 1 would be a much better investment in your time. So consider this a friendly heads-up, this is not a well put together story. It lacks clear identification of the characters, their purpose and motivation of why they are there and what they expect to accomplish. At best it isn't even an interesting story or premise to hang on to. It was all I could do to stay awake because I was expecting some sense of what I was watching that never came.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A depressing Holocaust like movie
25 October 2012
Like too many futurist movies, this one too shows a bleak future. The most overdone and obvious genre. People who have lived 50 years ago and in their 80s now, tell you life is good and in fact better. So why the doom and gloom outlook for the future? It simply isn't true. The movie is depressing like the holocaust. Children worst of all being treated totally unfair and by their own society and what for? For no reason at all, just like sports pushing people for no good reason than to tear their lives apart for the cheer of a crowd of strangers. The entire premise of the story makes no sense. It's like Dark Angel meets a more a sad version of Dark Angel. Don't watch this movie, it's a waste of time and is very depressing.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Whose Line Is It Anyway? (1998–2007)
Just not funny. Too obvious and low-brow.
14 June 2012
The concept for the show sounded good, but the problem was none of these actors were funny with improv. The entire time it show Drew Carey sitting there with a grin on his face like this was so funny. But it just wasn't. The attempt at comedy was forced so hard, the jokes too obivous and low-brow. If you were the kind of person that found Bob Hope the ultimate stand-up comic, this show might have been for you. For those with an imagination and intelligence shows like SCTV really put this show to shame. It was geared towards the beer drinking middle-class audience who has not really experienced creative comedy. Who needs a volume in the studio turned up audience or a laugh-track to know something is intended to be funny. When Drew Carey recently was interviewed about this show, he talked about he did it as a show of his gall that he had a hit TV series and wanted to do this with the same cast just to show them off. That's not the making of an artist vision and I wasn't surprised by his motives because the end result was a very poor product. I never made it through an entire episode of the show, not matter how many times I tried because I love comedy. This show was a bad idea.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lilyhammer (2012–2014)
Possibly good show ruined by needless subtitles
5 May 2012
This is a spin-off from The Sopranos regardless if anyone wants to admit it or not. Same character with a different name. The show had promise but it's ruined by excessive subtitles that are totally uncalled for. In Norway they also speak English, so there is no need for the subtitles for a series that's target is the American audience. Before anyone claims how enlighten it makes everyone with subtitles, notice the main character from The Sopranos only speaks English himself but somehow magically and instantly understands Norwegian in any context even if they use slang expressions. Unless this show ditches the subtitles it isn't going to last in viewership.
2 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So depressing and not worth the time to watch
23 December 2011
This is a movie about losers. Two losers. If you have ever known someone who was determined to self-destruct and in doing so drag as many other people down with him or her, then you can relate to the movie. However, why would you even want to think about such a person in the first place. People who need help must meet you half way. You can do everything for them, hand it to them on a silver platter and they end up spitting it back in your face. The thing is, you don't even feel sorry for the characters just that you want to keep those kinds of people as far away from you as possible. You don't want to know people like this and you don't want to live in such an area. No sane person can have sympathy for people who deface public and private property and justify it by claiming they are an artist. Artists have a canvas and they don't spend their time working to make the world ugly around them. The ugly is inside of them, at least put it on something which can be framed so people can decide if they want to look at it or not. Spray painting is the worst thing you can do for a community. When people see Graffiti they don't think it is cool or hip, they think it's ugly and wonder what kind of criminal did this. As the movie stated the fine was up to $50k and 2 years in jail. That punishment barely scratches the surface to repay society of this blight.

The music soundtrack was poorly done. It lacked any sense of what purpose music has in a film. Instead of using a stack of rap records, they film maker should have hired a skilled film composer to help this film out. Many dramatic moments were lost and almost a panic they made the music louder.
0 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Office (2005–2013)
Bad direction passed off as being contemporary
22 December 2011
The shaky camera work on this show is horrible. It's so bad it gives you a headache to watch. But for most who bought the hype that this is actually funny have been raised on a dosage of bad sitcoms, they don't notice because they are texting and surfing the web while the show plays in the background. Only looking up once in a while to see some stupid expression and this passes for humor. This is not a Seinfeld. Let me repeat, this is not the quality of a Seinfeld show. Further more, it is not funny like the movie Office Space. That is a VERY funny movie that perfectly re-creates the office experience. This shows relies too heavily on shaky camera work and odd angles, where the characters are one dimensional and very stuff. This is a knock-off watered down version of what comedy should be. Don't waste your time with this one.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Inception (2010)
About an hour too long.
1 October 2011
This movie is high energy but the problem with that is that it never stops. There is no contrast to it. High tension the entire time. No release and it wears out quickly to the point you don't even want to finish watching it. Too much repetition was included in this movie. Action sequences were too long and added nothing to the story. It needed a film editor to cut about an hour of it just to make it watchable.

Then there is the plot. A plot which was thinning wrapped around all the action and special effects. You got the feeling that you were watching a computer video game and not an actual story. Far too much distraction and time spent on the lead character's personal life problem and he trying to deal with it.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Funny People (2009)
Should be titled UNfunny people.
16 August 2011
Adam Sandler isn't funny. He does baby-talk and has made a career out of it. He appeals to those who have no appreciation to what comedy truly is. Not only was Adam Sandler not fit to be in the cast of SNL, he's terrible in a movie and can't sustained entertainment. He is like the drunk class clown at a frat party when everyone is drunk, and they laugh at anything. This must be the requirement for his followers who have not matured. This movie is bad casting, because no one would a second would believe the Adam Sandler's character was a comic. He comes across more like the guy who buses tables at a resort and was asked to come up on stage for a while to kill time before the real entertainment arrives. His character is a self-important narcissistic man who never grew-up to care about anyone else other than himself. He has no friends, and the only way he get can someone to tolerate him is to pay a weak man to take care of him including keeping him company talking to him so he can fall asleep. Is this a successful man, of course not, and this the kind of audience this appeals to.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Conan (2010– )
Not entertaining and lame, no improvement at all.
5 August 2011
Lorne Michaels has a novel marketing idea. Put a guy on TV who has never been seen by the public, and he promoted the first Conan show exactly like this. Michaels set very low expectations including having Conan seen riding a bicycle in New York street traffic. It got so, when you didn't know what was part of the act of lowered expectations, and when he simply wasn't able to delivery on a funny and entertaining show left to him by David Letterman when went to CBS. Conan tried a few skits, mostly immature high school level comedy that never hit it's mark. If you stayed up that late in those days you had little choice to watch anything on TV except Conan. Each time, you always hoped it would turn into the show which David Letterman left behind, but it never did.

After Letterman left NBC, NBC never recovered from the embarrassment and the loss in revenue from it. In a very typical brilliant agent move, Conan demanded the Tonight Show from Leno to take it in 5 years or he too would leave the network just like Letterman did. The execs at NBC went into a panic and agreed to this, simply not to repeat their mistakes of the past. It was entirely a bad move though. Conan was no David Letterman, and most certainly never for an instant had earned a chance at the Tonight Show. But the execs at NBC couldn't back out on it now. Conan took over and the ratings simply fell, and so did advertising revenue and for the first time since the history of the Tonight Show it was losing money.

Not wanting to look like they have had a huge mistake, they decided to move Conan back to his old time slot and have Leno take over the 11:35 PM time slot. The had writing was on the wall, Conan was in trouble and he knew it. He had no place else to go. In order to safe face Conan came up with a story which slackers could related to that he was leaving the Tonight Show. Of course, he was doing so with millions of dollars in his pocket. The poor staff who left their homes, friends and families in New York City area followed him to the the West Coast only to find themselves out of a job. While getting a typical severance agreement for the employees not unlike any larger corporate employer would offer, they were still out of work and very soon.

TBS had nothing to lose. They were mostly a forgotten network amongst the sea of thousands of cable channels. It was worth it for them to pay whatever small amount they came up with for Conan to do a show there, just to get the publicity and remind the public that TBS was still there. Even if Conan failed, it would take a while and meanwhile they would attract a new audience to watch the other shows on their cable channel.

The TBS show is the same lame attempt at entertainment that Conan had been doing for years which led to his failure on the Tonight Show. When experienced producers and advisors tried to help Conan do the Tonight Show properly, he refused their help thinking he knew better. He ignored the sound advice of seasoned professionals.

For those high schoolers who enjoyed Conan, they should set their DVRs up to watch the show now before it too fades away without notice.
10 out of 148 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Another movie ruined in part by a song score
13 February 2011
You like songs, that's nice, they belong on the radio. There were so many dramatic moments ruined in this film by pushing in a song and turning it up LOUDER AND LOUDER, to try to make up for a dramatic moment that was lost by using a song. Dramatic underscore that's written by a real film composer is what makes the music work in a film. Stuffing songs into it is nothing more than the production company trying to make money selling a soundtrack album that has no real relationship to the film. You might notice on soundtracks they include songs that weren't even in the film! Ever since David Chase ruined The Sopranos with poorly placed songs people have come to accept this as what they should do. Get back to the basics of music scoring.

The plot was truly horrible. So many disjointed ideas that didn't come together to form any sort of story.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Star Trek: Enterprise (2001–2005)
Truly awful.
6 April 2009
This was an embarrassment to the Star Trek franchise. Poorly convinced concepts, bad casting, and horrible direction. Gene would have never approved such a pale attempt to tell a Star Trek story. Most of the sets looked like they were filmed in little more than a college dorm room. The ship looked like it was something you could buy at Toys 'R Us. This series failed because people want to see Star Trek to imagine the future. A future where major problems have been solved and technology opens our minds to new ideas. The original Star Trek series gave Steve Jobs of Apple Computer the idea for the 3.5 inch floppy disk, for example. The whole premise of the involvement with the Vulcans made no sense.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Skip this, just watch the original movie.
6 April 2009
This movie reeks of board room thinking. They collected a bunch of large box office draws in the acting department and had no script. But too often management thinks that creativity and imagination are merely an accounting problem, so if they pay a lot for the script and the director, then they will come out with a hit. While you might think the Director isn't to blame, he/she always has the power to fight back and change the way the movie should be made or walk away from the project entirely. This movie lacked a real artistic vision of what the whole story is about from the original movie and what is so exciting about it. Yes, they could have simply make an exact remake with better special effects, but that would have been pointless. What they needed to do was use the original to build on. Go buy or rent the original on DVD which also has special features with interviews with some of its creators. The original is great and still holds up today because the script is so strong.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Prefer to see the real movies, without the talking.
18 April 2008
Mystery Science Theatre 3000 sounded funny on paper, but in practice it was annoying cause unless you have actually seen those movies it was like having some idiots sit behind you and talk during the whole movie. If those people really had talent they would make their own movie or TV show, not rip-off others work and make useless comments about it. I suspect those who enjoyed this are part of the short attention span generation that has no depth of thought of their own, and need someone to constantly babble at them while a movie is playing leading them around as to what to pay attention to. If a movie is grade-B or campy, fine, I can figure that out and enjoy it myself for what it is. I don't need some lame people talking through it. What a dumbing down of art, just like rap "artists" who can't write their own music so they steal others and talk over it. These people talked over the work of others too. They do this because they don't have any original ideas of their own. Why was this show on for so many years, because it was cheap to produce.
11 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Rick (2003)
The film score ruined what could have been a great film.
3 November 2007
It is surprising that an indie film was able to attract the talent of such talented actors, designers and crew, but over looked a critical element which is the film score. The music composed and arranged for this film was a very amateur work. So much so that it pulled you out of the story each time the poorly done music was played. You have to fight to not listen to it, so that you can keep your head in the story and action of the film. This is not the purpose of film music, it needs to work with the film, not against it.

The art direction was right on, as was the location shots of the film including the offices and the apartment. It is too bad that this wasn't done with a composer of the talents equal to the rest of the level of this film.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Sopranos (1999–2007)
It was good until Season Six.
19 April 2007
I don't want to give away Season Six, especially Part 2 for those who have not seen it yet. I can tell you don't waste your time. David Chase has totally run out of gas and direction on this series. Season Six was hyped so much there are people who are looking and commenting on great things which simply don't exist in the series anymore. The story plots have gone out the window and things seem to happen without character development or reason. Overall, the series was horrible in two aspects. While the theme music for the show was a lucky pick, the rest of the music used in the series is totally wrong for the scenes. It was a bad experiment of David Chase not to have real film scoring done. The problem is, this is like a great artist using wallpaper instead of painting an original design. The comment from their production that they didn't want to hire a film composer because they didn't want to tell the audience how to feel is total nonsense. That's the WHOLE point of telling a story is to tell the audience how to feel, and they were certainly doing that with those songs they dropped in which had such a literal meaning in the lyrics that it distracted and pulled you out of the story in a bad way. The audiences weren't use to this and didn't know what to take from this, so they declared it must be "art" cause everything else was done fine in the series for the most part. And the concept of the show was original, but it doesn't cover up the mistakes. Even from the point of view of putting songs in a production, they weren't done properly and were not edited correctly. For example, in the ending of one show, it ends up a lovely girl singing and this is stepped on in the editing in a very ugly way to some trashy rock song cause instead of simply leaving her singing over the credits. It would have had a much better emotional impact. But considering what an emotional void David Chase is in all the interviews, it doesn't surprise me he doesn't get this part. Even his production person said they come up with as bunch of different songs to use all the time. This isn't how it should be done, hire a great film composer and turn this into something great. During Season Six part its hard not to fall asleep watching it. The story goes nowhere and drags on.

The other huge mistake David Chase made in the series is the continued problems and conversations with AJ and Meadow. Those two should have been totally in the background like the Polish maid, for example, for the entire series. Too much time with dialogue which seems to be repeated over and over. AJ and Meadow have an attitude, they lie, they are lazy and don't improve. They date and break-up with no real reason to either events.

This series is so successful because of the past seasons and because of its original concept to rip-off Good Fellows and make a series out of it with much of the same actors. Come to think of it, doesn't sound very original at all, except to make a series out of it.

Strong advice for watching this on DVD. Watch seasons 1-5, fast-forward all the scenes with AJ and Meadow, and except for the main theme, any time you hear a song and no one is talking hit the mute button. If David Chase put out a special edition version of that, it would go a long way to remove the mistakes made in this series.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great funny movie!
1 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
What is so special about this movie, and makes worth repeated viewings are the story's development and the execution of the acting performances. The comedy is always spot on, and the casting is perfect. It also has an intelligent story line which you lightly can see how it relates to the teachings in the class room scenes. The parody of capture regarding the tenured faculty members of the college is perfect especially at one meeting where one is most concerned if there will be a fruit cup served at the event. There are no weak performances in this movie, everyone is right for the part and they deliver! Anything more would be considered a spoiler, so I highly recommend you watch this movie and just enjoy it. The best way to see it is to not learn anything more about it than I have just wrote.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Totally ruined the concept.
31 January 2007
They totally ruined the concept for this story. The second the talking space suit appeared, I knew this was going to be very bad. Too often what happens is that the makers of some films get seduced with the ability of special effects and forget the story. At that point, it was no longer a movie of the beloved My Favorite Martian we have enjoyed from the TV series but a cartoon. I highly recommend people watch the old TV series when it is on in syndication or if its available on DVD, because those shows focused on story and what little special effects that were done in the TV series were strongly carried by the acting, writing and direction.
30 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It lacks spark
5 January 2007
I'm a big Superman fan, I've seen all the movies, TV shows and read the comics. This movie shouldn't even be called a Superman movie, its more of a half-baked script that has no real story to it. Special effects can be very good at times, but without a real good story and script its a waste of effort. The casting for Superman and Lois were off. Superman at times reminded me more of some guy's fantasy waiting to play Superman than him being Superman. His build seemed on the slimmer/weak side for a Superman role, but I think what was really missing was that he didn't project that kind of self-confidence that you expect from Superman. Lois wasn't very appealing and her seemingly lack of interest in Superman and her family life was very boring.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Office Space (1999)
A funny, but truthful look at the corporate work place.
16 December 2006
Anyone who has worked in a large company can relate to this film and find it funny at the same time. The twisted concepts of management to direct workers shows how most companies lack real leadership. Instead, they hind behind these gutless forms and outside management consultants telling them how to run the show. They totally ignore how employees need to be treated as people. While this sounds dim, the movie isn't. It is a funny movie which allows you to see and laugh at what you have experienced yourself and how the workers deal with it in a unique and creative way. The role played by Jennier Anston is just perfect. It's not overplayed or the total focus of the movie.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Crash (I) (2004)
The movie others wished they were.
22 July 2006
This movie put together the lives of people and how they were linked without it seeming contrived a single bit. The acting was excellent. Their were good guys and bad guys, and you could see everything from their prospective. It didn't rely on gore as most Quentin Tarantino films. Even Sandra Bullock's acting was perfect for this film and perhaps it is because she was playing a character much closer to herself. I have found her performances in other films with those cute romantic films to be phony and forced. Her interviews come off as being very careful and guarded. The move grabs your attention from the start, even though the opening credits and credits music make you think this is going to be an odd film.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not as good as the first, very weak plot.
5 June 2006
While the first movie was very good, this one had a very weak plot. It is almost like they just wanted to string together one after the other of a movie of just chase scenes. After a while you get bored watching them because they don't seem to have a purpose. They make it look very easy how he travels from one country to another, grabs a map while driving and is able to find his way in a chase with ease. While in the first movie you actually care what happens to him, at this point you don't really care what happens to him as much because whatever the reason he is running doesn't seem to be as important to the director of this film as how many chase scenes they can pack in there per screen minute. While watching it, you wonder when he has gotten a chance to sleep, eat or use the bathroom since he is constantly on the run. I wished there were more meaningful diaglogue with his former employer, but it looks like they didn't have enough story and for the whole saga and didn't want to waste it on this film, since they currently have a third one in production. Perhaps there we will see more story and not so many constant chase scenes.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
You know nerds? This movie's got them!
28 May 2006
It is rare to find an indie movie such as this, that actually delivers. None of the scenes are too long or pointless. What makes this work is that there isn't just one nerd and a group of jocks and someone who is trying to do a make-over. The nerds stay nerds, yet still grow. The Uncle is priceless as a loser in his own right. The story doesn't focus on much history of the brothers, which is what keeps it funny. The people who find this movie are people who pay attention to detail. If you are the kind of person that has to be spoon fed something so over the top along with a laugh-track, then you aren't going to find this funny. This movie is for people who closely observe the behavior of other people. The movie isn't full of jokes, but the tone of the entire film together is what makes it funny. This is an excellent showcase for Diedrich Bader too, who's talents were fairly masked on that terrible Drew Carey Show. Diedrich Bader is very funny in this, as he was in Office Space.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Book of Love (2004)
Another poor concept indie film
2 May 2006
This is another poor concept indie film with songs that distract tossed in. Songs with untalented voices. The film's style gets in its own way. Each scene is way too long. This is the result of a cheap and in-experienced director who is afraid to do editing. Almost every scene needs 1/3 to 1/2 of it cut out. This is not a genre, this is simply bad film-making. Total over use of songs, that makes you reach for the fast-forward button. The story comes across like a half-baked 5 minute short film, with no real ending to it. Instead of focusing on the story line first and make it great, it was simply made longer and the result is very boring. When John Cleese talks about writing the great 1/2 hour Fawlty Towers, he and co-writer Connie Booth spent six week writing each show. They spent 2-3 weeks on just one the plot. This film is totally absent of this kind of attention to deal, hoping that the audience will somehow be confused with the dragged out scenes thinking it is some sort of genre. You find yourself asking yourself what this story is to be about or if there even is a story. The characters, even the husband and wife barely bond together. The two women, they don't come across as a couple really either. When you take a bad story, bad music, bad direction, bad editing and the wrong casting, you end up with a film like this.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Batman Begins (2005)
Luke warm Batman story.
17 April 2006
What has been great about a Batman story is the showing of strength. I am a big fan of the Batman sagas including the comic books. While not all the Batman movies have been great, this one had a good idea but it didn't deliver well. The story had flaws in it that were too much of a distraction. No other way to explain that than lazy writing. Sounds like it needed a few more table reviews of the story and to continue to ask the question if this helps or pulls the audience out of the story. If it pulls you out of the story, that's very bad. I do think the darkness of the story is a good idea, because someone who would devote to fight crime in this way certainly would have some inner struggle to deal with. The whole "evil" guy's plot didn't make sense and didn't seem to really tie into the story back at home.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Wolf (1994)
Too much Jack and not enough Wolf.
17 April 2006
If you are expecting to see a really good wolf-man film, this isn't it. It seems that directors want to put Jack Nicholson in a movie because he knows how to look weird and expecting some sort of real magic to happen. The wolf-type scenes weren't done very well because the stunt doubles didn't look enough like the actors, so this blunder pulls you out of the story. At times, you wonder who that is and then realize it must be the stunt double. The backdrop to the wolf part, with the story of the publishing company and the idea that in modern types someone would openly let their employer know they intend to take clients with them is laughable, with no mention of a lawsuit. This is lazy writing. Another example is the lazy one dimensional writing for the publisher's daughter who seems to have no life and just hangs out at her rich father's home. The daughter in her mid-30s would have more depth to her character by then.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.