Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
45 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

7 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
total crap, 20 September 2011

if you ever wondered what a biker's life would be like if a chick wrote the script for it, then watch "Sons of Anarchy".

i've had some experience with real bikers, and most of them are back stabbing weasels who don't have the balls to face men alone. most of them are rats you wouldn't leave in your house alone with your kids or your bitch. the real tough guys can rise to the top and live a little closer to the norm, but the culture prides itself in treating the women they are shagging as little more than whores. they call themselves bitches, and at least in public, are treated as such.

what this show has to do with bikers is like asking what does the wizard of oz have to do with auschwitz. it is total crap, turned into a female soap opera to get hetero partners to watch.

it is total crap, and more crap.

these guys behavior is mainly controlled by the chemical they are on at the time.

crook bikers suck, and so does this show. if it was realistic, the middle class premium purchasers would vomit.

and that is what this piece of Hollywood trash makes me want to do.

what's next? a soap opera about pol pot?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
wwII with other murders, 18 September 2011

this film transcends the usual agenda of the usual film financiers.

it is a metaphor to show that there was murder beyond the murder we have all been trained to see.

there were almost 27 million soviets slaughtered in what they call the "great patriotic war", that is their war with the Germans.

but who talks about that.

and that is the point of the film. there are crimes committed far beyond those we have been spoon fed to digest. there is a multitude of German resistance we have not been allowed to absorb, because the group that controls the media needs a total villain deserving no mercy in order to maximize the sympathy and guilt we are all programmed to feel.

if you feel repulsion at this review, then you and i are both victims of this propaganda.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
here we go again, 23 July 2011

i really enjoyed the first couple of episodes.

it wasn't the same old bbc half-cramped, half-lame originals -- these were vitalized tw episodes with u.s. talent, more budget, and a feeling that the actors were finally having fun and putting craft and energy into the expanded zone of torchwood.

but then, falling from the sky came the same twisted elephant that crushed the barely breath out of the original torchwood.

fully and blatantly, someone or somepeoples in the production line of tw decided to thrust gay, male sex into this third episode of this fourth series -- a series which until then, wonderfully revitalized, and finally aesthetically validated the idea of the doctor who franchise. these peoples planned to sexually program the youth of Britain by using popularly themed, story-centric flickering pictures. the most common and effective brain-washing technique devised my man--easily proved by the spectacular sales jumps seen when t.v. combines an attractive blend of football, globular breasts, and pick-up trucks.

video based, social engineering is not a new concept at the bbc. for years they have endeavored to finger-pull the prols out of their common muck by the nostrils. it's a simple concept: run a half-hour arts show after something common -- so they can't switch to ITV, 'cause the other side's plot is too far gone to grasp. and that is just one way.

i mean, what else would you call a reality show about being sixteen and pregnant, but socially engineered programming. the bbc is allegedly paid by the people, but gets its mandate from the toffs at the top.

the bbc encouraging art appreciation is one thing, but having a gay character cruise through a suck-face leather bar on what has traditionally been a child's show is bang out of order.

we have a gay oriented bbc group coupling with an L.A. gay production group, and tea-bagging a loyal international, sci-fi audience in a most aggressive distressing fashion. some mature and less angry gays must be as revolted at this turn as i am.

I know i'm writing what most wouldn't have the p.c. guts to. horribly, gay advocates have taken what has been for the past fifty-years, a family, child oriented concept and spun it into a political vehicle that neither parents nor children should ever be forced to squirm around. i mean when you are watching a doctor who spin-off -- the last thing you want to hear from your six-year-old is, "daddy, why are those two men rubbing each other and kissing?"

i have watched my last episode. bbc: straighten out tw -- pun intended.

Womb (2010)
54 out of 77 people found the following review useful:
complex, 21 July 2011

this is an emotionally and morally complex film.

the setting is bare, the dialog minimal, and all to leave room for the context which is massive.

the isolation serves to preserve the womb till the moment of all release, and therefore the moment of ultimate loss. there are many quiet metaphors in this film.

and it is these quiet choices that show some brilliant forethought on the part of the film-makers. it is brilliant film-making. if you can get past the squirminess of it all. and no doubt some day soon, if science has its way -as it will- this story will come true. just over a hundred years ago most believed that man would never fly.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
totally wrong, 2 July 2011

if after watching the first five minutes of this work, you expect a story of bigotry, unfulfilled ambition and sexual repression, then you have hit the mark.

i haven't seen such a blatant sexist tract since the last one lifetime network featured.

this is so culturally biased, that i thought i was watching an eskimo film with American accents.

if you actually receive any positive emotional charge from this bigoted tract, then i must say that whichever sex you claim, you should seek professional help for your self-esteem issues.

the program blatantly denies any reciprocal attribute that the contemporary culture offered, and skews viewing only from the view of a 20th century divorcée.

humbug, and trash.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
the cream rises, to a network few watch, 2 October 2010

this is an enjoyable series--well worth the watch. and if you want to put it in Hollywood lingo, then it is a 21st century "dog day afternoon", without the Attica chant. and if you don't know that film--see it. that's the meat of the series, but after viewing some decent twists in the middle, the end turns into a broke down copy of "heat".

and after watching a couple of episodes, it becomes obvious why the two leads went for this project: the writing and lead parts are exactly what mature actors dream of, and the producers must have convinced them that the small budget would be seen on the screen, and not end up on producer's expense accounts.

i'm an old recon marine, and some of the early tactical stuff had me cringing. but this can be partially discounted by the bandits being regular grunts and not trained for speed, but when the sarge called former marines--soldiers--throughout the series, i about soiled my sheets. we don't do that. we are not ordinary soldiers. i know. i was in the army and the marines.

but again, this is a great series--that is if you're into realistic television. it has many flaws: like dumping a cop in a populated area when he could have been dumped, blindfolded in the woods and thwarted the outcome; and whenever a killshot was needed and should be made by pros, they all shot as badly as the comedic, t.v. A team; and then there's the female vet/swat officer who acts like she was a three tour grunt who knifed tangos in their sleep for fun, instead of realistically being a truck driver who had a rifle in the cab too dirty to fire; and then there was the story's massively overworked murphy's law of extraction; and also the military insignia worn on swat gear (which would be a p.r. death to a police department), most probably used, against technical advice, as a time-saving Hollywood device so the viewers could identify officers wearing gas masks later in the show.

but throughout the strong points fully outweigh the weak. there is well fledged character development. and that is very hard to find. and all good springs from competent writing, a series time frame to grow in, and a production team dedicated to the project. despite obviously disregarding adviser input.

one of my favorites about this series is that it was not produced to go beyond one season--and then only eight episodes. that took balls. look how far they elongated "prison break", now there was a one season show extended over and over again because the ratings were strong.

and how the hell did it show up on spike? it may have been produced first then put up for sale--and spike was the only one ready to buy for the right price--or it may have been flatly rejected because it was too short for a series, and too long for a mini series, and since it fits neither.... anyway, what a shame, and this shows the limited vision of network t.v. executives.

20 out of 38 people found the following review useful:
bold, 29 September 2010

I'm an ex-pat Brit living in the us.

and i can tell you most American viewers wouldn't last past five minutes into this show.

the cast is below average in looks, some are deformed, they talk funny; the characters are a mixture of the depressed, depraved, the thick and the stupid. the acting can only be described as a work in progress, and they lead dead end lives in dead end places. there ain't no glamor here.

all this will repel viewers whose identity is cast by fashion and t.v. programming. this show could never find a spot anytime on a us network. episode four would send middle America into a terminal tale spin--but it's not their fault. we don't get this kind of material because the money men who run us television only care about the cash--the baby faced producers would say, "who wants to watch a show about ugly losers?".

and if you want to hold up PBS as a daring non-commercial network, then drink some more koolaid. their emphasis is Lawrence welk for the primary, grey haired donors, and pimping a brainwashing liberal agenda through their political programming. they might find the balls to show a program like this around the 23rd century.

but i love it.

the original film, and this following series, seems to take a cast of mostly inexperienced actors, who may have lived the parts, and coaches them through a working class reality which at its core is full of camaraderie, loyalty, forgiveness and love. not the prettified sitcom love, but a love grown through lifelong community and shared pain, a love of real sacrifice.

these people are flawed like the rest of us, but they are not us. at first we reject their world as alien, but we see, through time, they share all our fears and traumas. we too are all common.

and thank god someone is making something about real people.

the great shame is: only a few Americans will ever see this show. we need to raise the bar, and flush out the cobwebbed hierarchy at PBS. i just hope we don't have to wait until the 23rd century for our programming to catch up. i don't think i can wait that long.

7 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
i'm kenny powers bitch, 26 September 2010

this show is the Shiite. i know most females will hate this show, but that is the reason why most males will love it. and if your female partner is stopping you from watching it then--you should re-evaluate the power centricity of your male aura.

Kenny is the ultimate male ego, and in showing his powers, he also shows its weaknesses.

this show is beyond funny and crass.

usually to get this kind of funny, you have to go to Britain, but this time the u.s. has the edge and also the greater gonads.

from what I've read, will Farrell produces the show, and I'm glad he was able to produce something i liked beyond his s.n.l. crappola.

evidently this is the second series and I'm so glad it goes on.

keep it up. maybe we can change the specious pattern that is the norm of American comedy.

110 out of 134 people found the following review useful:
who's the idiot, 24 September 2010

if you're complaining that there is no gervais or merchant, then you're not getting it.

gervais has made lots of cash from claiming pilkington is an idiot, but after seeing the man through his own speech and action, then i have to disagree. and i wonder if this isn't another layer of gervais' caustic social commentary.

but if gervais actually thinks carl is a fool, then i have to say the joke is on him.

pilkington is a master of everyday, ultimate truth. a mastery that kicks the crap out of the vacillations of gervais, merchant, Nietzsche and me.

this man's brain boils down the b.s. of both the ancient and modern world, and turns all of it into simple equations -- with answers.

his conclusions must confuse populist, false intellectuals. and they wonder why? their training does not prepare them for carl; and the primary reason is: for many school smart people, the obvious is hard to grasp. and unfortunately; these are usually the same people who end up on television telling us what to think.

but i love his answers.

his shtick is the twisted mirror image of the fool thought sage.

44 out of 59 people found the following review useful:
sequelitis, 23 September 2010

this sequel follows an original that featured a decent budget and some very good actors.

and this, the first sequel, follows the pattern of most. that is as you move farther from the original, the budget shrinks.

and the consequences are: less sets, less location shoots, less action, no helicopter or overhead shots, cheaper actors, cheaper scripts and cheaper directors.

now some directors can take less money and turn out comparable or even better efforts than the original--but these are few and far between.

and this movie definitely suffers from sequelitis.

the whole thing feels stretched.

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]