Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

7 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

"Whitney" (2011)
27 out of 57 people found the following review useful:
Polarized reviews make you think, 27 September 2011

Specifically, why are the reviews either "love it completely" with a rating of 10/10, or do they hate it, with very little in between? Just think about that one a while.

I, for one, hate this show. The writing is boring, the jokes are stale and ones you've heard for ages, the acting is unimpressive and, oh, good God, the laugh track! Laughter for everything! Not even just for jokes! It's supposedly live but that makes sense, since the laughter sounds very forced, and not genuine at all.

What's worse, I see nothing redeeming in this show. It's simply one of the least valuable shows I've seen in a long time.

Flu Bird Horror (2008) (TV)
23 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
I weep for those others who wasted their time watching this, 12 September 2008

So my warning to those of you who have not yet wasted their time, no matter how cheap you may view it, DON'T.

This is what the Sci-Fi Channel is becoming known for; brain-dead movies which are not in the least "Sci-Fi". At one point in history, not so long ago, say, prior to 2002, the Sci-Fi Channel was true to its name. Then came movies like this. And in droves! Garbage, pitiful piles of dung which never cease to amaze for the sheer low quality they exude.

What's most notable about this "movie" is the sheer LACK of anything GOOD to say about it! Rare is the movie which is of such all-encompassing lackluster merits that there are no good points to be offered. No, this movie doesn't even have the "cheese" appeal; you can't even say "it's so BAD it's GOOD"! If you want that, watch some of the Japanese monster films from the 1960s.

About the only remarkable quality of this film is how the Sci-Fi Channel manages to produce movies which continue to get WORSE.

8 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
Transformers for Dummies, 4 August 2008

Really, who comes up with this stuff? I am always amazed how a team can take a decent original cartoons plus a number of knock-offs ranging from rather good to fairly poor - and create something like this. Why would anyone think this was worth adding to the Transformers saga? Transformers: Animated isn't just bad. It's laughably awful. It must have been aimed at much younger children than was the original. If you were to imagine a Transformers and Teletubbies hybrid, this might be it.

That being said, perhaps very young children (say, in the 2-6 range) would enjoy this. Not being and expert in that demographic and never having parented young children, I cannot say. I can only state with certainty that to teenagers, young adults and adults, this will disappoint. Especially if you were an first-run fan of the original Transformers.

This mockery doesn't deserve the name "Transformers".

In this case, it's truly LESS than meets the eye.

35 out of 41 people found the following review useful:
This show should have ended after s3!, 17 June 2008

Shows like this make me wish IMDb allowed us to rate individual seasons.

Like Earth: Final Conflict, another Roddenberry posthumous series, it started out rather good, with a lot of potential. They both had interesting concepts, good characters and could have gone somewhere. Yet, as happened with EFC, the seasons got progressively worse until finally ending up as a joke, the likes of which you might expect to come from the SciFi Channel in the post-2003 era.

Andromeda's best seasons were 1 and 2. The plots surrounded the overall concept which was an idealistic captain from an idyllic fallen civilization seeking to restore an order to the fractured systems across 3 galaxies. It was evocative of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire as the Dark Ages set in.

In season 3, the series lost its aim. There were still interesting plots but the overall aim of a lone captain in a powerful ship on a lone quest to restore the Commonwealth had been lost. While not as good as seasons 1 & 2 by any means, season 3 is still watchable.

It's at the end of season 3 when the series took a notable nose dive. Season 3 ended with a cliffhanger which made you think everything had changed; yet when season 4 began it was clear the only thing which had changed was that everything became less logical and the writing noticeably worse. I have to wonder if there was a major change in management and writing talent at this point. In season 4 things foundered and it was not the Andromeda of before.

Season 5 became a joke. The end of season 4 obviously set up a "reset" for the entire series but instead it appears in season 5 they ignored this set-up and created a scenario hardly worthy of Andromeda. Instead of roaming 3 galaxies trying to establish a grand civilization, the crew, which inexplicably survived clearly being killed, is now trapped by an absurd force in a single solar system plagued with ailments while Andromeda sits crippled. Season 4 was a disappointment but season 5 was so far removed from the original series that it only served as the butt of jokes from former fans.

All in all, Andromeda serves as an example that you should know when to end your show before it becomes pitiful. I average it out as a 5/10 because the last 2 seasons bring down the total score considerably. I would rank the seasons as follows:

Season 1: 8/10 Season 2: 7/10 Season 3: 6/10 Season 4: 4/10 Season 5: 2/10

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Another pile of dinosaur dung from the Sci-Fi Channel, 28 August 2005

Sci-Fi Channel. Home of the worst movies imaginable.

Sadly, these movies aren't bad in the "so bad they're good" way, despite what the fools who run the network might want you to believe. They are just BAD. As in "a pain to watch". "Without value". The only way to make movies like this remotely entertaining would be to make them utter comedies. Sadly, though, movies such as "Pterodactyl" are not comedic, just pathetic.

Were these characters and was the acting supposed to be funny somehow? They were utterly abominable! From the stereotypical diva actually looking at herself in the mirror for minutes at a time and saying "I love you" to her reflection to geeks who are like Urkel without the charisma. Was it supposed to be funny? Were we supposed to laugh? Maybe the first 1,000 times we saw such exaggerated stereotypes they might have been mildly amusing. Now they're just lame and tired. Can't laugh at them. Can't hate them. Can't like them. We can only hate watching them.

Send these flying dinos after the management of the Sci-Fi Channel. Now THAT would be funny and elicit great cheering from the fans of the Sci-Fi genre!

Crimson Force (2005) (TV)
6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Why would anyone write a good review for this movie? Makes you think!, 27 August 2005

I'm new to IMDb but I'm starting to notice something.

It seems some movies are getting a lot of bad reviews trashing them but then a few that praise it. I'm noticing a pattern to this, however. The movies which are receiving some high praise are all unquestionably awful. Movies like Crimson Force are so bad that I can't imagine anyone truly enjoying them! None of my Sci-Fi fan buddies like it.

I believe it comes down to having people either paid to write good reviews for such movies or people who worked on such movies writing reviews to praise them. It's the only explanation. Look at the reviews here. Most people hate it but there are a few who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. No middle ground. That doesn't make sense for sincere reviews.

Crimson Force is a frighteningly bad movie. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Conceptually it's moronic and a slap in the face to Sci-Fi fans. Save your time.

14 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Awful. Simply awful., 27 August 2005

This series is just.... awful.

Really awful.

It's strangely disturbing to see a couple hopeless has-beens who have destroyed themselves through their own bad choices. Even more disturbing is how Whitney has allowed Bobby Brown to drag her down into the mud with him. She gives a bad name to all her fellow women for doing this in the name of "standing by her man". "Standing by her criminal idiot" is more like it.

There isn't even the interesting drama one would hope from a TV series. Drama needs a protagonist. Someone you can root for. Someone struggling to make their world better. Whitney and Bobby are just circling the toilet bowl whining about how their past success isn't allowing them to have careers anymore.

How this train wreck of human life can become a TV show is beyond me.