Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Late Night with Seth Meyers (2014)
people need to give this show another chance....it's improved vastly in last few months, and has become more of a daily show now---better than Noah
I hated this show. Period. Now, I've watched recent episodes and it is gold. Like way better than before. Its actually he shame he took so long to find his groove because I guarantee any former daily show fan frustrated with Noah will likely be satisfied with Seth's first 15min. every night as supplement to Noah's awfulness. Seriously, I understand where ll the bad reviews came from; but, you people really need to give it another look---or, "a closer look" (as is the name of a consistently great political satire piece he does!). Another line to submit review. Another line to submit review.Another line to submit a review. Another line to submit a review. Pretty dumb policy IMDb.
The Daily Show (1996)
Trevor Noah's terrible version of the daily show doesn't deserve to inherit all the good reviews and respect of past daily show
***Attention IMDb admin, current daily show fans, and former daily show fans:
The good ratings and reviews of the daily show are dated and inaccurate now since there is a new host---a host that in mine and many others' opinions has tanked a formerly amazing funny and insightful and informative show.
Trevor Noah shouldn't be getting the benefit of high IMDb ratings for the daily show since it was Stewart and kilborn that most people have given high ratings for in the last two decades, not in the last 5 months since Noah began.Noah would likely only be at 4 or 5 stars with less than 1000 votes, rather than 8 or 9 stars out of 35000 voters.
Doing this is tantamount to reviewing a new bond film well because you liked Connery bond films in the 1960s just because it is the bond franchise. You don't review things purely based on franchise, you base it on the work and people coming next in a newer version of things.
For a better comparison, this is how IMDb differentiates the tonight show from host to host in its various carnations---with Carson, with Leno, and with Fallon are adages for separate pages of "the tonight show'. The tonight show isn't rated and reviewed in general, its generational and person to person as hosts, which is what the daily show should be as well since kilborn, Stewart, and Noah are all different hosts of different generational styles and humour and fans. You don't go to the tonight show with jimmy Fallon page and see reviews dated back to when Carson or Leno were hosting because thats absurd, right? Well, why is Trevor Noah not being treated so special this way, why is he for no reason riding the coattails of fans and respectability he hasn't earned at all. Its false advertising, and false review system, and makes IMDb seem completely useless.
Furthermore, since it is highly unlikely that IMDb would change this--- why it wouldn't i have no clue since its common sense as applied to everything else on the website in terms of franchises being differentiated by newer versions---i think the only measure to counter this would be to recast your votes to downgrade the current daily show, and to remove any reviews made prior to Noah, and to post more recent reviews lambasting him.
There should be honesty and merit and up to date ratings of things, otherwise what is the point of even having this website and people turning to it to get a good measure of what is good or bad? Rigging ratings in favor of someone defeats the whole purpose of the website. It needs to be updated and more accurate, and the different versions need to be on separate pages.
How to Get Away with Murder (2014)
This show sucks. Badly. The ensemble is terrible acting. The writing is hacky. And viola davis is good but her emmy win was undeserving when compared to tatiyana maslany in orphan black. Davis is best part of show but they focus on the ensemble of young 90210 students and their dumb dramas. Th he plot and dialogue is cliché. The music anf tone sucks for a crime drama. The whole thing wreaks. Shonda rhimes keeps getting praisr for making garbage just like greys anatomy. Its like reviewers and critics are all dumb flaky fans who know nothing about writing and acting and directing. Like if the bar of reviewing Bieber was all tween girls. Bizarre that all the idiots drown out reason that this sjow sucks. I have no idea how or why it has an 8.2 rating. Reading other reviews it seems clear that most people find it flaky. I think this 8.2 rating is either rigged or being blindly voted by muddle aged women and black people.
The Theory of Everything (2014)
Theory of Nothing: highly overrated generic tripe
This is 2014's most overrated film of the year. While Eddie Redmayne is good as Stephen Hawking, it's really just a performance that deceives the viewer and critic. He looks like Hawking. His hair and clothes look like Hawking. He does the 'Hawking' smile and weird thinking stare face and frowns. Yes, he does a believable Hawking. Well done. But it's just a glorified impersonation. There's no actual great acting or stretch of a transformation or method or scenes that Redmayne is tested as an actor nor Hawking's character development. The dialogue and interactions, aside from using actual Hawking quotes from speeches and writings, are awful and boring and redundant and derivative. The whole performance is mild and plain, and the story is weak. The story has generally been done before. There are no significant scenes or moments that go above and beyond anything generic, nor anything for Redmayne to truly bite into to 'perform.' Even the accident and fall portion of the film is mild and never really becomes that emotional at all. Mostly, the film fails miserably in exploring Hawking's internal thoughts, imagination, rituals, and inspirations.
It plays like a T.V. movie. And quite frankly i'm tired of these Hollywood films doing biopics about an ENTIRE life, using montage and generic moments that aren't specific or significant enough. Biopics that are focused on a period on a life is more interesting than trying to do a whole life in two hours. There's no sense of Hawking and his children in his life. Births are fast-tracked, montage child play and smiles. The film gives you an impression of just Jane, his wife, being a vessel for children. There's no sense of Hawkings personal life, interests, time spent, or anything underpinning the vast ideas he develops. We see him on a beach or being pushed in a wheelchair by family as piano plays. The film is devoid of politics or popular culture and changing times of each decade other than clothes as lazy indicators, and the exception of pointing out Penthouse a few times as some recurring wink wink joke to convey Hawking as some sexual guy. This 'sexualized' Hawking happens throughout the film in various ways..."so Stephen, do some things still 'work.'" The movie mostly follows Jane and her torn affair with some choir priest. In fact, Jane is in more scenes and gets more to act on screen than Stephen Hawking (and Redmayne for that matter). The story is more focused on tripe romance and affair rather than Hawking. And even when departing, a montage is set in again. No emotional development is organic. And, perhaps, maybe as brilliant as Hawking is and as tragic as his condition is, maybe he's just a boring guy and not much can be that interesting in terms of a character on film in scenes other than a guy sitting in a wheelchair mumbling and smiling and frowning. The film would've done a better job with Hawking's imagination and space interpreted in shots, as well as the times he was living in and absorbing and watching as opposed to generic renderings of his domestic life (which was still mild and safe compared to the actual reality) and Jane's struggle and perspective. Everything is furthered by cued dramatic music and montage and shots of faces occasionally. By trying to cram in broad strokes in writing the film into a corner with Jane's story, the theory of everything becomes theory of nothing.
Marco Polo (2014)
Although littered with historical and biographical inaccuracies and exaggerations, Marco Polo has a good quality production and creates an escapist atmosphere of a mythologized past. The acting is average, and the story lines and characters are intriguing. The settings and camera work are great, and rather than solely focusing on Marco Polo the show has many other characters' roles and perspectives. The sense of power struggles is well laid out, although not even close to Game of Thrones level in scope (obviously).
In terms of any comparisons and/ or contrasts of other historical-epic type t.v. shows, I would say those that enjoyed the shows Rome, Spartacus, Vikings, and Shogun would enjoy this show. This show isn't quite as good as those particular shows, but is better than shows like Black Sails, Davinci's Demons, and The Tudors.
Considering it's Netflix first venture into historical-epic/ fantasy type genre, it's really good quality and more signs of great original content on the Netflix horizon.
All in all, I give it an 8.
The Dirties (2013)
The dirties is blatantly a good film, and those criticizing it either don't know film and shouldn't be posting anything or are trolls
To all those criticizing this film,like 'xBlack from Saskatoon (i guess more compelling program close to home like Corner Gas is more your thing), you ALL completely are missing and trolling this blatantly fine film.
*note: Users and IMDb should look at users profile and history that gave this film a 1 or 3 as revealed trolls and/or people without film knowledge. 'xBlack' admits to not even finishing watching it yet gives a 3. 'sdiegotow' only gives 1 for things they dislike and a 10 for what they like, so its all a game and no in between nuances. Viktor Vedmak does the exact same thing, only 1 or 10, and is even more discredited by giving Burt Wonderstone a 10(!?). Charliehound, who does same thing too yet acts in review like they know what they're talking about and gives ratings as though they are fair (gives Gravity a 1, which is film I thought was overrated and Bullock bad acting, but a 1 with that direction and compared to ALL other films ever made, and its a 1!? Also only gives Chronicle a 1. Like this person is insincere and a troll, or just completely devoid of intelligence or scale of good and bad.) Most of these people only like what they like as 10 to raise their things but then gives 1 to lower other things. At least hey gave Breaking Bad a 10 lol! Their contributions should be either banned or weighted as meaningless compared to real reviewers. The audacity is that they are confused why people are liking it and can only conclude therefore it must be fake or everyone are morons, so they are just frustrated they are in minority opinion. They are almost like the bullies AND losers they say they found boring in this film. Can IMDb please use some oversight in who gets to speak for film and who rates film.
As far as Canadian filmmaking goes it is superior to most. The work of Matt Johnson as lead actor, director, editor, and everything else, should be commended. If anyone has seen Gus van Sant's 'Elephant' or Harmony Kormine's 'Bully' or Micheal Henke's 'Funny Games' or more recently Josh Trank's 'Chronicle', you would be right to draw comparisons but also realize this film earns the right to placed in the same regard and esteem. The film has a lot more ideas going on than simply the premise of losers and bullies, as the lead character drifts more into a fantasy fueled by a thin line of film fiction and daily surreal alienated life and bullying within and without. It is transparent and self aware of its construction and inner workings of film gimmick. The film doesn't indulge in constructing overwhelming terrible world they live in, so other than the odd physical bullying by stock type characters, there is an authenticity to the school, home, and outside world they live in, as well as the films they draw from and inspired by.
Also, there are people I knew and know that talk and act that way, albeit annoying to many, so the rendering and dialogue of these characters isn't too far off the mark, especially in terms of film nerds and today's eccentric outcasts and 'beautiful losers'. You aren't suppose to "like" these characters, but film nerds and those bullied may root them on. Regardless, the task isn't to make them heroes or victims,but rather a fly on the wall as part of their fantasy and reality at odds. One thing that the film misses that is a detriment, is the fact that there are actually many intersections and exceptions of what constitutes 'nerds' and 'bullies' (i.e. many film or artsy or eccentric people are popular, and jocks aren't like the big bully nor are they perceived as popular by all people, but the film is playing on stereotype as well yet playful enough in doing so).
To those commenting on the mystery and intent of having a 'camera-man' and their identity and role: its a device, don't get too worried about it...it's part surreal and part as though there is someone "in on it" like some collective shadow. The shadow and world of this 'filmed bubble' with camera and mics is what they share and experience as friends, like an 'in joke' only they get. Voyeuristic metaphor and random viewer interpretation of that mystery is the intention I think.
The abrupt insane ending, is something to be admired too, which i wont spoil. Running throughout the film is a nice balance and building of wit, humor, hypocrisy, exaggeration, and frustration. Nothing is overly indicted as "the sole reason" for bullying and school shootings. Nor, is the film exploitative, in violence or in antagonisms that are clear right and wrong or hero/victim thingy. There is a careful way of allowing viewers to take different things from the film, and to perceive the leads as either victims, heroes, or losers. That in and of itself shows that the film did its job.
The audience is one big high-school with varying camps who would like or dislike and gang up. Trolls ruining this film's rating intentionally with a 1 rating, almost ironically embodies them as "the Dirties'. The judgement for sake of judgement without understanding and not paying attention is partly why such 'losers' and 'bullies' exists in tension. And, I was popular but I also am nerdy and have some nerdy friends so i'm not biased, and lets face it, nerd is now the norm, and in fact bullying has become trolling, so i guess there's a frustration and tension still brooding but in different ways. Grow up.
In short, leave the 'real' reviews and films to film fans and people who know what they're talking about. We aren't all Roger Eberts, and things are all subjective, but there is a difference and those trolling or those ignorant know exactly what i'm talking about.