I really liked it, although the premise was ridiculous. I thought it was funny and not altogether predictable and also very sweet. There was lots of Spanish in it. I never heard of this actor, but the Internet says he is a well-known Mexican actor. I thought he was too old to pair with her, and I looked it up, and indeed he is 15 years older than she is. But it was a fun movie.
Reviews
13 Reviews
Book Club
(I) (2018)
A Waste of Good Talent
11 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This was a movie without much of a plot. Apparently the plot wanted to be that these older women suddenly decided that sex was important to them, or in the case of Jane's character, that sex with somebody that mattered was important. Apparently this happened because of a sexy book that they read for their book club. Stupid plot. But the plot was not the worst thing. The characters are not interesting. The script is not interesting. I kept waiting for something to happen, and it never did.
The women change - but why? They do things - but why? Most of their actions made no sense, and they made women, particularly older women, look stupid. The dialog was superficial and boring and sometimes made no sense.
The casting was bad in that the couples didn't match. Jane is 12 years older than her mate, and she looked a lot older. She would look at lot better - and younger - if she would quit with all that horrible makeup. Craig was 9 years older than Mary, and he looked a lot older. Diane was 10 years older than Andy, though she actually looked the same age, so that was not too bad, but she should have been paired with Don. Candice being matched up with Richard, who is two inches shorter than she is, and with Wallace, who is five inches shorter, was ridiculous - especially when she was dressed up in heels. Why would she have been interested in those men? Candice Bergen was beautiful as a young woman. I think she would be better looking today if she lost some weight, because the fatness in her face distorts her appearance.
Candice was supposed to be a judge, which implies high intelligence and education, but we don't see that in her. There wasn't one intelligent word written for her character. Jane was supposed to be a dynamo in the business world. Yet nothing intelligent was written for her either. All the women basically acted like dingbats to one degree or another. We learned nothing about them except what their jobs were and that they had suddenly become sex crazed.
These actresses have been around a long time and they have much to their credit. So why would they want to make a movie that didn't have anything important to say and didn't need to be made, when it's very likely that they don't need the money? If I were they, I would be relaxing and doing something worthwhile instead of making a movie where I'm tossed into a pool and/or not given an appropriate costar. As an established star, I would be able to choose a vehicle that was worthy of my talent.
It's not as if older people can't find love or be attractive to someone, but it's just not the same as being 45 years old, and they shouldn't have tried to make it seem like it is. It just makes older people hooking up look really stupid and ridiculous. A script dealing with this subject should be written by someone who is more aware, and the script should deal realistically with older people hooking up.
The women change - but why? They do things - but why? Most of their actions made no sense, and they made women, particularly older women, look stupid. The dialog was superficial and boring and sometimes made no sense.
The casting was bad in that the couples didn't match. Jane is 12 years older than her mate, and she looked a lot older. She would look at lot better - and younger - if she would quit with all that horrible makeup. Craig was 9 years older than Mary, and he looked a lot older. Diane was 10 years older than Andy, though she actually looked the same age, so that was not too bad, but she should have been paired with Don. Candice being matched up with Richard, who is two inches shorter than she is, and with Wallace, who is five inches shorter, was ridiculous - especially when she was dressed up in heels. Why would she have been interested in those men? Candice Bergen was beautiful as a young woman. I think she would be better looking today if she lost some weight, because the fatness in her face distorts her appearance.
Candice was supposed to be a judge, which implies high intelligence and education, but we don't see that in her. There wasn't one intelligent word written for her character. Jane was supposed to be a dynamo in the business world. Yet nothing intelligent was written for her either. All the women basically acted like dingbats to one degree or another. We learned nothing about them except what their jobs were and that they had suddenly become sex crazed.
These actresses have been around a long time and they have much to their credit. So why would they want to make a movie that didn't have anything important to say and didn't need to be made, when it's very likely that they don't need the money? If I were they, I would be relaxing and doing something worthwhile instead of making a movie where I'm tossed into a pool and/or not given an appropriate costar. As an established star, I would be able to choose a vehicle that was worthy of my talent.
It's not as if older people can't find love or be attractive to someone, but it's just not the same as being 45 years old, and they shouldn't have tried to make it seem like it is. It just makes older people hooking up look really stupid and ridiculous. A script dealing with this subject should be written by someone who is more aware, and the script should deal realistically with older people hooking up.
The Greatest Showman
(2017)
The music was awful!
10 July 2018
I stayed for one hour, couldn't stand it any more. Costumes were great. Hugh Jackman seems to excel at period films. Unfortunately, it was a musical (which one doesn't learn from the trailer), and unfortunately, the music was terrible. So it was hard to sit still for the music, and finally I couldn't sit still for it any longer. It reminded me of the music in Dream Girls and also La La Land, which was all over the place. I don't know how a singer would even be able to memorize this stuff. It doesn't follow normal musical patterns. Later it occurred to me that it seemed like they were playing the same tune over and over with different words. This didn't have to be a musical with terrible music. If it had just told a story, it would have been all right, although, based on what I've read, the story it did try to tell wasn't even accurate, and it hides a lot of bad stuff about Barnum. I just looked up a review, and it says this tony-winning duo of Benj Pasek and Justin Paul composed this music and that they also composed the songs for La La Land. Well, that's not surprising. I walked out on La La Land also. I love good musicals, but this was not one. I would rate it 1 or 2 except that the costumes and the scenery were quite attractive.
His Girl Friday
(1940)
Disappointingly Stupid, Unfunny, and Annoying
16 February 2015
I watched this movie on an oldies channel, and I watched it because it had been rated on this site by over 36,000 people, and there were 300 reviews, and the upshot was 8.1 out of 10. I figured that with that many people rating it favorably, it was bound to be a good movie. Wrong again! I found it to be incredibly stupid and completely unfunny, plus the rapid-fire dialog where everybody constantly talks over everybody else was extremely annoying. The Cary Grant character was a very mean person. I saw right away that he was what I would describe as a certain word that they probably won't let me say here but it begins with an a. The Grant character was dishonest and manipulative, and he did bad things. In real life, I would have had nothing to do with a person like this. Yet he is the one that we are supposed to think of favorably. Why? What does he have to recommend him? Absolutely nothing. He is a first-class jerk. I saw reviews calling this movie "hilarious" and "incredibly funny." There was absolutely nothing funny about this movie, let alone hilarious. I guess some people think that a person doing mean things to an innocent person and trying to manipulate someone to do things to benefit him are hilarious. I happen to think that cruelty and injustice are not funny in the least. And things were done that made no sense. I couldn't understand why these people would do these things which in real life nobody would do. I watched the whole film, but I sure wish I hadn't wasted my life in so doing. Apparently there's no point in going by ratings. This movie got a higher rating than any other movie in the schedule, and yet it was awful. I watched several other movies rated around two points lower and enjoyed them a lot more.
A Case of Bad Writing
14 February 2014
This episode broke three cardinal rules of good fiction writing.
Number 1. You want your protagonist to encounter difficulties which he or she has to overcome, but the difficulties have to be caused by things he or she can't control, things from the outside, not by his or her own stupidity. When the protagonist brings things upon himself or herself, the reader or the viewer is not interested. That viewer just gets disgusted. In this case, both Kitty and Matt acted stupidly and caused the very problems the viewer was supposed to care about.
Number 2. You don't want to have people acting out of character, because that just doesn't make sense to the reader or the viewer. In this case, the deputies acted out of character in that they did not try to help.
Number 3. Your protagonist should get out of his or her difficulties by his or her own wits, not by chance or fluke. In this case, our protagonists did not get out of their difficulties by their own ingenuity but instead basically by fluke.
I would provide more specific information except that I don't want to give it away to people who haven't seen it.
I do not wish to see any other shows written by Hal Sitowitz.
Number 1. You want your protagonist to encounter difficulties which he or she has to overcome, but the difficulties have to be caused by things he or she can't control, things from the outside, not by his or her own stupidity. When the protagonist brings things upon himself or herself, the reader or the viewer is not interested. That viewer just gets disgusted. In this case, both Kitty and Matt acted stupidly and caused the very problems the viewer was supposed to care about.
Number 2. You don't want to have people acting out of character, because that just doesn't make sense to the reader or the viewer. In this case, the deputies acted out of character in that they did not try to help.
Number 3. Your protagonist should get out of his or her difficulties by his or her own wits, not by chance or fluke. In this case, our protagonists did not get out of their difficulties by their own ingenuity but instead basically by fluke.
I would provide more specific information except that I don't want to give it away to people who haven't seen it.
I do not wish to see any other shows written by Hal Sitowitz.
Eat Pray Love
(2010)
Irrational Emotions and Behavior Glorified
26 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
At the beginning of the movie, she's really emotional, on the floor of the living room in the middle of the night, crying and praying to God to tell her what to do. She's so unhappy in her marriage. Yet we have met her husband, and he's done absolutely nothing to indicate there's anything wrong with him. So these emotions seem completely irrational. She hooks up with a young actor. Then she leaves him for no apparent reason.
She goes to Italy. She finds new friends. She eats. Italy is great, her friends are great. She is having a great time with really nice people. But she leaves Italy.
She goes to India to look up this guru her ex-boyfriend followed in NYC. Very boring prayer and meditation stuff all day long. She meets this Texan, an asshole, who constantly belittles her, criticizes her, tells her what to do, how to think, how to feel, how she's not measuring up. She puts up with it. Then upon returning from a wedding, he orders her to come and follow him, whereupon he sits down and starts to tell her his story. He used to drink. One time he came barreling into his driveway and didn't see his little son there playing on the tricycle. You are led to believe that he ran over his son and killed him. The man is now crying at what a horrible person he was then. So then he tells you that the kid got out of the way in time, but his wife was angry at him and left him. She is expected to sit and quietly listen when he wants to express his emotions, but whenever she has said anything that she felt, he has shouted angrily at her, telling her how inadequate and wrong she is about everything. She does in fact sit and quietly listen to him when he's talking. I wouldn't have suffered this asshole for a moment.
She next goes to Bali. This Bali guru had told her that she would return to Bali. Well, she has fulfilled the prediction herself by coming here. At first, he doesn't remember who she is. I thought: That will be a good lesson for her — taking his predictions and nonsense so seriously, when he doesn't even know her or anybody else from a hole in the ground. But then he remembers. She falls in love with a really nice guy, a guy who never yells at her, never belittles her, only expresses his love for her. He has prepared a nice time for her. She starts irrationally yelling at him and acting completely crazy for no reason at all. She says: I don't have to love you in order to (love myself?). Her statement came out of nowhere and meant absolutely nothing. And her emotion had no basis in reality. She goes back to the guru, who tells her go be with the guy, and so she does.
Also, in India, this one woman put on a sign saying she was not speaking for x amount of time. I find this very narcissistic. Everybody has to notice me, point to me, give regard to me, because I'm now the center of attention. You have to figure out what I'm trying to say. You have to try to communicate with me without speaking. I'm the whole center of attention. Me-me-me.
This movie was no doubt considered a "chick flick". This is the kind of movie that causes men to think that women are idiots. The star actress acts irrationally and has strong emotions for no reason at all, and nobody could understand this, let alone the man she is with. And women in general like this kind of movie. So no wonder men think women are idiots — and incomprehensible idiots at that. Fortunately, not all women are idiots like this protagonist, and those who aren't didn't like this movie.
The main character kept expecting somebody to save her. She expected God to save her: Tell me what to do and I'll do it. She expected the guru in Bali to save her. He was supposed to tell her what to do also. She went on the trip in order to cater to her own psychological craziness. It was completely self-indulgent. Toward the end, she did do a generous thing to help a poor person. But even that was contrived, just thrown in so that you couldn't say that the whole movie and everything she said and did was all about herself. But it really was.
She goes to Italy. She finds new friends. She eats. Italy is great, her friends are great. She is having a great time with really nice people. But she leaves Italy.
She goes to India to look up this guru her ex-boyfriend followed in NYC. Very boring prayer and meditation stuff all day long. She meets this Texan, an asshole, who constantly belittles her, criticizes her, tells her what to do, how to think, how to feel, how she's not measuring up. She puts up with it. Then upon returning from a wedding, he orders her to come and follow him, whereupon he sits down and starts to tell her his story. He used to drink. One time he came barreling into his driveway and didn't see his little son there playing on the tricycle. You are led to believe that he ran over his son and killed him. The man is now crying at what a horrible person he was then. So then he tells you that the kid got out of the way in time, but his wife was angry at him and left him. She is expected to sit and quietly listen when he wants to express his emotions, but whenever she has said anything that she felt, he has shouted angrily at her, telling her how inadequate and wrong she is about everything. She does in fact sit and quietly listen to him when he's talking. I wouldn't have suffered this asshole for a moment.
She next goes to Bali. This Bali guru had told her that she would return to Bali. Well, she has fulfilled the prediction herself by coming here. At first, he doesn't remember who she is. I thought: That will be a good lesson for her — taking his predictions and nonsense so seriously, when he doesn't even know her or anybody else from a hole in the ground. But then he remembers. She falls in love with a really nice guy, a guy who never yells at her, never belittles her, only expresses his love for her. He has prepared a nice time for her. She starts irrationally yelling at him and acting completely crazy for no reason at all. She says: I don't have to love you in order to (love myself?). Her statement came out of nowhere and meant absolutely nothing. And her emotion had no basis in reality. She goes back to the guru, who tells her go be with the guy, and so she does.
Also, in India, this one woman put on a sign saying she was not speaking for x amount of time. I find this very narcissistic. Everybody has to notice me, point to me, give regard to me, because I'm now the center of attention. You have to figure out what I'm trying to say. You have to try to communicate with me without speaking. I'm the whole center of attention. Me-me-me.
This movie was no doubt considered a "chick flick". This is the kind of movie that causes men to think that women are idiots. The star actress acts irrationally and has strong emotions for no reason at all, and nobody could understand this, let alone the man she is with. And women in general like this kind of movie. So no wonder men think women are idiots — and incomprehensible idiots at that. Fortunately, not all women are idiots like this protagonist, and those who aren't didn't like this movie.
The main character kept expecting somebody to save her. She expected God to save her: Tell me what to do and I'll do it. She expected the guru in Bali to save her. He was supposed to tell her what to do also. She went on the trip in order to cater to her own psychological craziness. It was completely self-indulgent. Toward the end, she did do a generous thing to help a poor person. But even that was contrived, just thrown in so that you couldn't say that the whole movie and everything she said and did was all about herself. But it really was.
iSteve
(2013)
Maybe you have to be stoned to watch this movie
24 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I don't really know how these comments would constitute a spoiler, but I checked the box just to be sure.
I don't understand why anyone would want to take the subject of a famous person about whose life and work much is known and make a movie that is full of false information. What is the point? Was it humor? The movie was not funny. It was embarrassing.
They made Bill Gates look stupid. He didn't deserve that. They made Wozniak look stupid. He didn't deserve that. They made Jobs look like he got all his ideas from other people, usually while stoned. He didn't deserve that. They showed Steve's father yelling and acting mean and crazy. He didn't deserve that. They made that Dell guy look like an idiot. He didn't deserve that either.
Anyone who knows the history knows that most everything in the movie was false. Anyone who doesn't know the history will be learning lies. Also, if you didn't know the history, then you wouldn't be able to make any sense of this movie, because there's no telling of a story. It's just random bits thrown together, most of which are completely made up. It seems to be based on people knowing a few bits and pieces but not knowing anything well, so that when they show, for example, Steve being ejected from Apple, people will say to themselves, "Oh, yeah." Maybe you have to be stoned to watch it, and then it's just an experience, rather than presuming to have any intellectual content.
What was that about the commencement speech at Stanford, trying to make Steve look stupid there? This commencement speech was very inspiring. Listen to the Steve Jobs Stanford commencement speech and judge for yourself.
When Steve left Apple, he was not poor. He had tons of money, and with it he started a new company. As another viewer pointed out, John Sculley was indeed with Pepsico, and none of that stuff happened that way. (They did not meet at a urinal, and Sculley was not a spy.) I've never heard of Bill and Melinda being separated or of Steve having a thing for her. She wasn't even around in the early days. Read the book Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. There you will find the real information about Steve Jobs' life and career.
By the way, I thought it was amusing that the actor from the I'm a Mac / I'm a PC commercials played Steve Jobs in the movie. (Those are some funny commercials.)
This movie was very stupid and a complete waste of time.
I don't understand why anyone would want to take the subject of a famous person about whose life and work much is known and make a movie that is full of false information. What is the point? Was it humor? The movie was not funny. It was embarrassing.
They made Bill Gates look stupid. He didn't deserve that. They made Wozniak look stupid. He didn't deserve that. They made Jobs look like he got all his ideas from other people, usually while stoned. He didn't deserve that. They showed Steve's father yelling and acting mean and crazy. He didn't deserve that. They made that Dell guy look like an idiot. He didn't deserve that either.
Anyone who knows the history knows that most everything in the movie was false. Anyone who doesn't know the history will be learning lies. Also, if you didn't know the history, then you wouldn't be able to make any sense of this movie, because there's no telling of a story. It's just random bits thrown together, most of which are completely made up. It seems to be based on people knowing a few bits and pieces but not knowing anything well, so that when they show, for example, Steve being ejected from Apple, people will say to themselves, "Oh, yeah." Maybe you have to be stoned to watch it, and then it's just an experience, rather than presuming to have any intellectual content.
What was that about the commencement speech at Stanford, trying to make Steve look stupid there? This commencement speech was very inspiring. Listen to the Steve Jobs Stanford commencement speech and judge for yourself.
When Steve left Apple, he was not poor. He had tons of money, and with it he started a new company. As another viewer pointed out, John Sculley was indeed with Pepsico, and none of that stuff happened that way. (They did not meet at a urinal, and Sculley was not a spy.) I've never heard of Bill and Melinda being separated or of Steve having a thing for her. She wasn't even around in the early days. Read the book Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. There you will find the real information about Steve Jobs' life and career.
By the way, I thought it was amusing that the actor from the I'm a Mac / I'm a PC commercials played Steve Jobs in the movie. (Those are some funny commercials.)
This movie was very stupid and a complete waste of time.
The Deep End of the Ocean
(1999)
An Excellent Movie
8 May 2013
This is an original and well-written story — unlike most movies, which have predictable and time-worn story lines. It's about real people with real emotions, decent people trying to deal with difficult situations.
I liked the characters. I liked the realistic way they dealt with the situations. And there wasn't any overacting, like you see so often in movies. People didn't go around screaming or otherwise overdramatizing, and yet their feelings were apparent. It was well acted by all.
Most parents consider their children to be their possessions. Some parents have no regard for their children's feelings. Only a parent who really loves his or her child thinks of the child's happiness and best interests above all else. This picture recognizes this fact.
This is an excellent movie. I really enjoyed it.
I liked the characters. I liked the realistic way they dealt with the situations. And there wasn't any overacting, like you see so often in movies. People didn't go around screaming or otherwise overdramatizing, and yet their feelings were apparent. It was well acted by all.
Most parents consider their children to be their possessions. Some parents have no regard for their children's feelings. Only a parent who really loves his or her child thinks of the child's happiness and best interests above all else. This picture recognizes this fact.
This is an excellent movie. I really enjoyed it.
The Thirteenth Floor
(1999)
An undeveloped idea, a waste of good time
28 April 2013
I can not believe how many of these users actually liked this movie! Some people's standards for a movie must be really, really low.
First of all, I have to say that I have not seen The Matrix, which was referred to in several users' reviews. So I am not comparing this movie to anything else. My opinions are based on this movie all by itself.
It was a mystery. It kept my attention. I wanted to solve the mystery. I kept watching to get an explanation of what was going on, but explanation there was none. During the first part, I thought it was going somewhere. At first, the scenes seemed to make some sense. But as the movie proceeded, the scenes were just made-up incidents that had no relationship to each other or to anything. The movie never did explain things, and as the credits rolled, it still didn't make any sense. The ending just throws the viewer into a complete state of bewilderment, as if all of what went before wasn't bad enough. I mean, you thought you were getting some kind of explanation there for a while, but then the ending just blows that up in your face.
What does the title have to do with the film, anyway? If it had anything to do with it, it went past me.
The plot idea sounded like a good concept when I read the plot outline. But I was extremely disappointed in the movie. I think you could say that this film only laid out the plot idea but never developed it. It most certainly did not tie loose ends together. I don't understand how anyone could write so poorly. If the plot makes no sense or is otherwise poor, then you have no movie. You just have a bunch of scenes. This so-called movie had a bunch of scenes that were mostly unrelated and that went nowhere. It's a complete waste of time to watch such a so-called movie.
First of all, I have to say that I have not seen The Matrix, which was referred to in several users' reviews. So I am not comparing this movie to anything else. My opinions are based on this movie all by itself.
It was a mystery. It kept my attention. I wanted to solve the mystery. I kept watching to get an explanation of what was going on, but explanation there was none. During the first part, I thought it was going somewhere. At first, the scenes seemed to make some sense. But as the movie proceeded, the scenes were just made-up incidents that had no relationship to each other or to anything. The movie never did explain things, and as the credits rolled, it still didn't make any sense. The ending just throws the viewer into a complete state of bewilderment, as if all of what went before wasn't bad enough. I mean, you thought you were getting some kind of explanation there for a while, but then the ending just blows that up in your face.
What does the title have to do with the film, anyway? If it had anything to do with it, it went past me.
The plot idea sounded like a good concept when I read the plot outline. But I was extremely disappointed in the movie. I think you could say that this film only laid out the plot idea but never developed it. It most certainly did not tie loose ends together. I don't understand how anyone could write so poorly. If the plot makes no sense or is otherwise poor, then you have no movie. You just have a bunch of scenes. This so-called movie had a bunch of scenes that were mostly unrelated and that went nowhere. It's a complete waste of time to watch such a so-called movie.
Dan in Real Life
(I) (2007)
A Pleasant Family Film
26 March 2013
The movie was interesting. It kept flowing. The characters were likable, which is important to me. I don't want to watch a movie about people I don't care about. I really liked the whole family atmosphere. I liked the way the family played together and had fun together. It was really nice. His misery on finding out that the woman he just met is with his brother was played nicely. You could just feel how awful that would be. You meet somebody that you think is special, and then suddenly what seemed to be the starting point of a relationship turns into the end of the relationship. It's especially frustrating and unbearable when the more you get to know of the person, the more you like them. The family was so close and the woman was so accepted as the brother's girlfriend that I had to wonder how in the world it would ever be possible for him to end up with the woman, even if she were to decide that she preferred him over the brother. It seemed as if it would just be unthinkable, because the brother and the rest of the family would hate him then. I'll leave it to you to see how it turned out. Incidentally, the given description gives away something at the beginning of the film and I think it should be changed so that it doesn't do that. (If it were to be changed, I'd have to modify my review so as to not give away anything.) I think I enjoyed this movie primarily because of the characters and because of the nice family feeling that was evoked. It's too bad more families can't be like this.
A Star for Two
(1991)
No Stars For You
25 March 2013
I kept waiting for something to happen, but nothing ever happened. The people were not interesting. These folks had no passion, even though back in the day they had passion. The interspersed film clips showed that. The woman especially was passionless. You could see in his eyes that the passion might be lurking there, under the surface. But she was always so formal and boring, with no capacity for passion indicated at all. This story lacked vitality. The scenery was pretty, and the story line had potential. But it never came through with anything. Also, his overindulging in drink on the one occasion seemed quite out of character. And the title. Where did that come from? I keep having trouble remembering it, because it seems to have no relation to the story. A better title would be "No Stars for You".
A Fun Movie
15 March 2013
This movie was fun. There was not a boring moment. The characters and the dialog were credible. It kept my interest the whole time. Before I watched it, I looked it up on this site, but it didn't come up. Later I realized that you can't enter an apostrophe when entering the title. I was able to bring it up when I input it without the apostrophe. I thought the title of this movie was quite appropriate, couldn't have been any better. The acting did not suffer from the flaw of many movies of this type, which is the flaw of overacting. Instead, it was well acted. The characters were interesting. I really think the rating it has so far on this site is way too low.
Evil genius smarter than God has returned.
25 January 2013
Well, it was pretty gruesome as always. Christopher Pelant was back. Last we heard from him, he had managed to escape prosecution and had gone away. However, now he was back. He sent all kinds of clues and so forth to Bones and the crew, challenging them to figure out his evil scheme, just as he did last time.
I think Bones is the most reality-detached show on the planet. Last time all the evil stuff he did and all the stuff they did to counteract him was way beyond the realm of believability. This time was no different. Do you believe that this evil genius could track everything on the government's computers so that the FBI couldn't even run a search without his knowing it? Do you believe that he could direct a drone to fly into some country in the Middle East and drop a bomb? This bad guy is depicted as being more powerful than God. He's certainly more powerful than all the powers on Earth. Now how can that be????? You know what it's like? It's like bad science fiction. Good science fiction makes you think. It seems like the thing could be possible. It seems reasonable in some way. But in this case of bad science fiction, it's completely insane. It's like they think of something they want to have happen, and they give no thought whatsoever to whether that thing is remotely possible or remotely reasonable or even remotely credible. Here's the writers' motto: Just imagine it, and it will happen.
I think the adolescent taste for film that has been catered to for lo these many years has had the stakes raised over and over again to the point that they have to reach farther and farther out to satisfy it, and this is the result. Instead of writing for character and for realism and for stories that might actually happen, they are writing for the adolescent shoot-em-up, blow-em-up mentality. I'm a grownup, and I like to watch shows written for grownups.
I agree with everything the other reviewer said, except I think they said this used to be a great show. I don't know about that. I have always found myself not believing just about everything that they do. Their technology seems to me completely made up. None of those guys in the lab miss a beat. All of them know everything and think of everything and understanding everything the other person says. Now how is that possible? Besides everything else, Angela is supposed to be an artist, right? Yet her vocabulary is just as exotic as that of the scientists. She's also a computer expert, and so on. That's not believable either.
Bones is really and truly a big waste of time. And the gore really puts me off anyway. This last show was it for me. I'm turning off Bones, both the new shows and the older shows that I've been wasting my time watching.
I think Bones is the most reality-detached show on the planet. Last time all the evil stuff he did and all the stuff they did to counteract him was way beyond the realm of believability. This time was no different. Do you believe that this evil genius could track everything on the government's computers so that the FBI couldn't even run a search without his knowing it? Do you believe that he could direct a drone to fly into some country in the Middle East and drop a bomb? This bad guy is depicted as being more powerful than God. He's certainly more powerful than all the powers on Earth. Now how can that be????? You know what it's like? It's like bad science fiction. Good science fiction makes you think. It seems like the thing could be possible. It seems reasonable in some way. But in this case of bad science fiction, it's completely insane. It's like they think of something they want to have happen, and they give no thought whatsoever to whether that thing is remotely possible or remotely reasonable or even remotely credible. Here's the writers' motto: Just imagine it, and it will happen.
I think the adolescent taste for film that has been catered to for lo these many years has had the stakes raised over and over again to the point that they have to reach farther and farther out to satisfy it, and this is the result. Instead of writing for character and for realism and for stories that might actually happen, they are writing for the adolescent shoot-em-up, blow-em-up mentality. I'm a grownup, and I like to watch shows written for grownups.
I agree with everything the other reviewer said, except I think they said this used to be a great show. I don't know about that. I have always found myself not believing just about everything that they do. Their technology seems to me completely made up. None of those guys in the lab miss a beat. All of them know everything and think of everything and understanding everything the other person says. Now how is that possible? Besides everything else, Angela is supposed to be an artist, right? Yet her vocabulary is just as exotic as that of the scientists. She's also a computer expert, and so on. That's not believable either.
Bones is really and truly a big waste of time. And the gore really puts me off anyway. This last show was it for me. I'm turning off Bones, both the new shows and the older shows that I've been wasting my time watching.
Tell Your Friends