Reviews written by registered user

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

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Showed promise but went downhill, 12 January 2017

I had big hopes for this show after watching the first few episodes. The first two seasons actually had a plot that moved forward at a satisfying pace. It also had characters that we could actually care about. We are now about 2/3 of the way through season three and what, exactly, has happened since the end of season two? Not much. Most of the characters have repeatedly made enough bad decisions to show us that they are at heart just bad, or very stupid, people. At this point the only characters who are of any concern to me are Vic and Cole. The rest are just morons or assholes. That's not enough to want to continue watching. This would have been much better as a one season series.

21 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
Blows Chunks, 19 March 2016

The first episode pressed all my buttons. It had the pointless, drawn- out foot chase that could have been avoided if they'd only thought to post someone at the back exit. It could have ended early if only the girls had thought "now that we have him down let's keep beating on him". Instead they did what stupid writers force them to do. They basically knocked him down and left him intact so that he could continue to chase them for another 15 pointless minutes.

Then they added the final insult. It ended the way 99% of the episodes of Criminal Minds (TOS) end. The bad guy has a knife/gun to the throat/head of a hostage whereupon a standoff unfolds. Really. Maybe on occasion, but does every freaking show have to end in a hostage scenario? Unlike this waste of time, Criminal minds (TOS) at least has interesting characters even if the show had become little more than torture porn.

If you want to see an excellent cross-border cop show then forget this one and watch reruns of Crossing Lines.

9 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Awesome op-eds but ruined by excess crudity, 7 March 2016

I was a big fan of John Oliver on The Daily Show and, at least for season one of Last Week Tonight, I remained a big fan. I expected that with the relaxed language filter on HBO the dialog might be a bit more, shall we say, salty, and in season one the f-bomb was dropped more or less appropriately. But it seems that in season two, and even more in season three, the "colourful metaphors" are being used more and more frequently. And it seems they are being used with the attitude that "well, we have an unlimited supply of f-bombs so let's use as many as we can."

Season 3 episode 4 was the worst yet. Was it really necessary to say that dinosaurs didn't reproduce on Noah's Ark because "nobody f**ks on a cruise"? Or to have an extended segment with newscasters (and I use the term loosely) using euphemisms, with big block-letter overlays stating "HE/SHE MEANS F**KING"?

It's one thing when Samantha Bee responds to Hillary Clinton's comment about how she "wouldn't have believed two years ago that she'd be running for president" with a deservedly sarcastic "oh f**k off". It's another entirely when John Oliver interrupts the flow of an otherwise brilliant op-ed with crude comments aimed at the more juvenile audience members. Here's a clip of the Republican Debate and now here's a video of two turtles f**king. If the content were a little less salty (I allow that some profanity is warranted) I would still rate his show a 9. But with the increase in crude metaphors and pointless peppering of the f- bomb I can't rate him (currently) as more than a 4.

23 out of 43 people found the following review useful:
Not Worth Your Time, 31 January 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a series that I was looking forward to seeing having grown up in the silver age of comics. Although Superman and Co. dominated the DC universe, lesser known titles like Challengers of the Unknown and Rip Hunter, Time Master generally provided a broader range of stories. The original Rip Hunter was not a time-lord style hero from the future with a band of super heroes/villains. He was a contemporary inventor whose creation, the time sphere, allowed him and sever human (but not super) to travel through time. Unfortunately, the new TV show has retconned Rip into something else entirely. It is a fact, however, that writers at DC (and Marvel) seem to have been given carte blanche to retcon at any time to remake any character as they see fit so screw consistency.

In any case, the major failing seems to be that we are going to get a band of adventurers pursuing one villain with each episode likely reduced to "we caught up with him, we fought him, and he got away". Then there is the same problem we see frequently in The Flash - the characters forgetting that they have specific weapons/abilities. And not just the so-called heroes. In episode 2, the people at the auction bid by firing their guns in the air but when the fighting breaks out they resort to punching? Too many situations in The Flash could have been resolved quickly if only Barry could remember "hey, I can run really really fast". When the writers assume that the viewers are morons I just stop watching.

Doesn't anyone realize that just because Savage is immortal doesn't mean he can't be tied up?

Plus I can't help but cringe every time I hear Snart or Rory speak.

1 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Showed promise but ended up being just another one-trick pony, 20 January 2016

I was really looking forward to this one. I enjoyed Rob Lowe tremendously in West Wing (too bad the show got away from him) and Fred Savage in Wonder Years. The segments of the fictional "Grinder" TV show were wonderfully over-acted and perfectly lampooned many of the cheesy overly dramatic moments from some of my favourite shows of the past decade or two. In the end, however, the writers just ended up presenting us with the same joke over and over. Add to that the blatant abuse of Fred Savage's family's hospitality to a point that nobody would tolerate and the show just became annoying. Watching people being abused is not comedy. Even the occasional treat of Timothy Olyphant in a comedic role is not enough to keep me watching.

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Started good then faded fast, 31 December 2015

I had high hopes for this show when it first started. For the first couple of seasons it was interesting and I thought they handled the deaf thing very well. It didn't feel preachy and was a natural part of the show. I thought it was a nice touch that when the deaf people were "talking", most of the background sounds were muted (and the background music was stopped). It really helped to see the scene from the "deaf" perspective.

The high hopes, however, have been pretty much trashed. The characters have become stereotypes. Kathryn Kennish is either whining/pouting or cajoling ("c'mon. It'll be fun"). Everyone is quick to condemn and jumps immediately to indignation mode at the slightest provocation. As soon as someone disagrees with a character's position it becomes "why are you taking his/her side?????". The writers have gotten lazy to the point where every episode seems to have the same plot:


a) discovers a secret about someone b) is told something about someone ("but you can't tell anyone") c) blabs a secret after being told not to tell d) makes a complete idiotic or out-of-character decision


apologizes with the phrase "I should have told you".

That last one can appear multiple times in an episode.

The coincidences pile up one on top of another to the point that credulity is stretched beyond all human capacity.

And above all, no one ever seems to learn anything or experience any personal growth. Daphne, especially is guilty of this. She has made so many bad decisions and has shown such bad judgment that there is no way she should ever become a doctor. I had also hoped that Katie Leclerc would show some growth as an actor, however, she seems to have only four facial expressions in her repertoire and none are very convincing.

26 out of 89 people found the following review useful:
Unfunny and crude, 22 September 2015

Blunt is yet another instance of what has become known as "cringe" comedy, which is a genre of comedy that derives humor from social awkwardness. From the very start, Walter Blunt (whose name derives from Shakespeare and possibly Gordon R. Dickson) is a thoroughly unlikable character. Within minutes of the first episode opening Blunt has offended bar patrons and picked up a transgender hooker. The talk quickly devolves into penises and vaginas and goes even further downhill from there.

Now, I have no problem with humour of a sexual nature, but it seems that that is all that comedy writers are able to write about these days. I recently attended a comedy club in New York. Out of five acts, four consisted of nothing but "frank" talk about pussy and blow jobs. It's not "edgy". It's just talentless and crude.

Surely we can aspire to better and more clever comedy than Episodes, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Comedians, and this latest pile of guaranteed (and intended) to offend pile of crap.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
"The one Thing" Plot Device, 28 January 2015

This incarnation of CSI (the one true CSI) has the same shortcoming of every single CSI style procedural I have ever watched. It seems that every crime scene always has to have "the one thing". And that is defined as the one thing that immediately narrows down the list of suspects to one or two people, or the list of regions to one area.

Think back to the shows you have watched. Even better, pay attention from now on. How many times do the CSI techs discover a marine organism specific to only one small bay (NCIS New Orleans), bird poop that results from a specific breed of bird eating a specific berry only found in either South America or one specific casino (CSI).

I can live with the accelerated timeline resulting in DNA tests taking only an hour instead of weeks but in most cases when a lab tech analyzes dirt left at the scene, what he/she discovers is that it's just freakin' dirt with absolutely nothing special about it. Lab techs do not routinely find that the victim ingested a type of chocolate that is not yet on the market and can only be found at one specific person's house (CSI:NY), or pollen from a plant that only grows in a ten square yard area in Central Park and only blooms on the third Thursday of June (CSI:NY again).

And yet, time and time again those miraculous techs (in conjunction with incredibly stupid and/or unfortunate villains) mnage, with a few tests, to "nail it". Either thesee techs are regular miracle workers or the writers just assume we are all morons who won't recognize lazy writing.

143 out of 238 people found the following review useful:
Entertaining but assumes the viewers are morons, 28 January 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When I was a lad back in the 60s my favourite super heroes were The Flash and Green Lantern. I'll discuss the horror that was the recent Green Lantern movie in that thread.

I was really looking forward to the 2014 version of The Flash. While John Wesley Shipp made a great Flash back in 1990, the writers just had to inject the usual cornball humour that ruined the show for me. The 2014 Flash suffers from a different problem. The writers assume that the viewers are morons. Two examples follow:

In one episode, Flash fights an opponent who can turn to steel. He defeats him with a risky move that requires him to run at supersonic speed, then enter a building and punch the villain. If the theory is wrong The Flash dies. Here's an idea. How about using the same speed to launch something like a brick at him? In either case, though, how does one stop in the length of a high school corridor when one is traveling at supersonic speed?

But the biggest problem is that the writers continue to ignore the fact that The Flash can run really really fast. That's kind of the whole basis of the series. Check out the episode where he is up against Captain Cold and Heat Wave. The two villains are in the middle of the street and the only way he can defeat them is to get hit by both guns at the same time? We just saw Barry serve coffee to a room full of customers without being detected (because he can run really really fast - get it?). Here's an idea. Run really really fast and take their guns away before they can fire them.

Then there's the other option. As my son and I watched the show we repeatedly turned to each other and said the single word, "sniper". Somehow all those police just overlooked the fact that they carry guns and neither of the villains was wearing a bullet proof vest. And even if they were. Head shot! Duh!

So I am tired of being treated like a moron. I think I'll be passing on future episodes. Pity.

424 out of 748 people found the following review useful:
Typical JJ Abrams Drek, 20 September 2012

What we have is another production by JJ Abrams. Unfortunately that translates to BAD. In an interview, Abrams claims that the science makes sense. Sorry. If batteries (electro-chemical) don't work then neither do people. Our bodies run on electro-chemical processes. So there goes the science. But crap science, after all, is a staple of JJ Abrams. After all, in Star Trek he had Spock watch the destruction of the planet Vulcan from the surface of another planet in another star system WITH HIS NAKED EYES! Next I have to wonder how, after fifteen years, people can still be wearing fresh, white, machine-made clothing. I guess it wouldn't look good to have everyone walking around in sheepskins. Bu why not leather? Last, but not least, there is the JJ Abrams specialty. Billion-to-one coincidences. Again, in his absolute drek of a reboot of Star Trek, one coincidence (among so many) was having Kirk marooned within walking distance on the same planet as Spock and Scotty. In Revolution, the three questers enter a random building after entering Chicago. The first person they talk to is (what a bloody amazing coincidence) the very person they are looking for.

I can't imagine how anyone who puts so little thought into his work and who treats his target audience with such contempt still gets to do what he does.

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