Reviews

42 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
How is this a classic?
9 September 2019
After not finding a reason to watch this the past few decades, I decided to watch it since it was on Showtime and there was nothing else to watch. I couldn't believe how disappointed I was.

I didn't particularly care for Pulp Fiction, but at least it was original and somewhat creative. There just wasn't anything entertaining about Reservoir Dogs. The only thing I was surprised by was Tarantino's appearance in it (which would have not happened had he not written & directed it - I'm not sure how many people realize he's a failed actor).

I'd heard enough about the film that I was prepared for the violence and gore, and while I didn't enjoy that aspect, it wasn't the reason I disliked the film so much. Although some of the language was a bit abrasive (the rampant use of the word in an early 90's film does seem... odd to say the least). It was just plain boring. The plot was thin and barely held together, and the ending was just completely unsatisfying.

I just don't see anything about this film that would make any true cinephile consider this a masterpiece. It doesn't lend anything to the cinematic landscape of the genre or decade or film in general. The only people who would like it would have to be Taratino buffs (who are a breed of their own) and love it because it was his first big film - which apparently is a rip-off of an Asian crime film.

Honestly, unless you're a hardcore Tarantino fan (in which case you've probably already seen it) skip it! Maybe it was a landmark in sheer amount of violence, but it's certainly not relevant nor does it offer any redeeming value.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Henry Danger: Henry Danger: The Musical (2019)
Season 5, Episode 20
1/10
Cringe worthy camp!!!
1 September 2019
Ok, I get this is a kid's show - in fact I've never watched a full episode, but, c'mon! If you notice, all the other reviewers talk about how their KIDS loved it. We're talking about suburban housewives in "flyover states", who are already fans of the show. For a more objective view....

I only stopped on the channel because I was watching Nick at Nite ("Friends" reruns, I believe), and saw a commercial for it, and couldn't believe what I was seeing. I thought it couldn't possibly be as bad as it looked, so only paused my channel surfing out of morbid curiosity. Not only did it seem incredibly banal, but incredibly kitschy and campy, and... (how do I put this PC & diplomatically), foppish. It looked like something a 1st year theatre major at a community college would write if they had 15 min and no budget. It makes HS musicals look like Tony Award winning productions (at least they have decent source material). Just inane dialogue and the songs and acting are on the level of a teen theatre camp. Granted, the show itself would only be a 4 or 5, this musical special is awful.

Like I said, I get that it's a kid's show, and I'm by no means the target demo, but I can't believe an adult could sit through this w/o cringing. The reviews saying it's the best TV musical ever can't possibly have ever seen a professional production (TV or other).

I'm sure younger kids who are fans of the show would enjoy this, but any normal parent would need to just let the kids watch it and occasionally check in from another room or distract themselves w a book and a large glass of Chardonnay to sit through this. I seriously feel bad for the adults who took part in this production. This certainly can't be what they thought they'd be doing when they decided to pursue their dream.

Watch at your own risk.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boogie Nights (1997)
2/10
Self-serving and pedantic
31 August 2019
The camera work is amateurish (to the point of being comical in parts), half the acting is laughable (esp Wahlberg - his performance in the actual film is as stiff and unnatural as his performance in the adult films they're supposed to be shooting). It's basically a low budget film, trying to be an independent artistic film, but only succeeding in being so far up its own behind that (despite the number of truly talented actors like Julianne Moore), it manages to succeed only in patting itself of the back for bringing the shallow vision of a depraved pervert to life. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude, but there's zero artistic redemption here - just an excuse for "actors" to pretend they're making porn. How this garnered any sort of accolades or attention beyond ironic laughter is beyond me.

Literally, as I'm sitting here, re-watching it, every time Mark Wahlberg is on the screen, I'm taken out of the moment and reminded that he's just a horrible actor whom Hollywood is trying desperately for everyone to consider a star.

Pure and utter tripe.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Star Trek: Enterprise: The Augments (2004)
Season 4, Episode 6
1/10
👎👎👎
24 August 2019
For the most part, I loved this version of Star Trek, but this story arc (and this episode in particular) had the worst writing and acting I've seen since the original version.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Star Trek: Enterprise: Cold Station 12 (2004)
Season 4, Episode 5
3/10
Horrible acting
24 August 2019
Normally I'm a big fan of this Star Trek, and let me be clear, my issue here is with the guest stars. The writing, and even more so, their acting (the "augments") is so cheesy and over the top, it's like a bad Dr. Who episode.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Biased viewers
24 August 2019
While I personally think this presents credible evidence and especially credible experts (including Lockheed veterans who refuse to answer or address certain questions), people who believe UFO's are just bunk probably aren't going to be swayed because they already have their minds made up. I'm not the kind of person who thinks every mysterious light in the sky is a UFO, or even necessarily that UFO's means ET's; just that there are unexplainable encounters and government deception. I mean, Ancient Aliens is one of the most absurd and far fetched show I've ever seen.

One reviewer cited the poor quality of the video(s), saying there were high quality cameras when the videos were shot. Perhaps he wasn't paying attention (he specifically mentions the military), but the videos were shot w the IR tracking cameras on jets. They're not exactly 4K HD - not even smartphone quality. These aren't spy planes, they're fighter jets where the cameras are for tactical & targeting/radar purposes. Some people will dismiss any evidence, no matter how legitimate or compelling, simply because it goes against their already formed views. Those people are obviously going to give this show a low rating.

The show is targeted at people who have an open mind and want to know more about the subject. For major UFO buffs, it probably has repeat information, but for me there was definitely some new information. I mean, what do military personnel have to gain by coming forward and sharing their experiences. Some even go to lengths to conceal their identities for fear of repercussions.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Growing Pains (1985–1992)
3/10
Does NOT hold up
21 August 2019
I watched this show all the time as a kid, and had fond memories of it, so when I was scrolling through the listings and saw reruns of it, I thought I'd take a trip down memory lane. Boy was I surprised!

It was just... BAD. The writing was horrible - completely predictable w tired and not even remotely creative or funny "jokes". The acting was shockingly bad. I suppose one can make allowances for the younger actors, but even the adults were disappointing - not even on par w most regional theatre. Although, considering the quality of the script, there's really only so much they could do. But considering Kirk Cameron was such a big star at the time and grew up on camera, one would think his acting chops would be a little more solid. I honestly don't know how it stayed on the air for as long as it did. I don't know if standards were just different back then, and all family sitcoms were this cheesy and tripe-filled, or if it was uniquely cringe worthy. It's pretty much as bad as Full House was, which was definitely aimed at kids. I still don't understand why they decided to introduce the 4th kid, Chrissy (vastly changing her age overnight) fairly early on in the run. I know they introduced Leonardo DiCaprio as a last ditch effort to revive it, but that was at the end of the series. It's just another indication of how "paint-by-numbers" the entire show was.

Let this be a lesson; never go back and watch shows or movies that you liked as a kid. I mean, sure The Brady Bunch was pure kitsch, but it was written in the 70's, and while similarly so saccharine, puerile and aseptic they couldn't even show a toilet, the cheesiness and absurdity is/was part of its charm - granted I wasn't even alive for the original run, or I may have viewed it in a different light.

I feel bad giving it such a low score, and it's probably based on how much better I remember it being, but had I been an adult (or even teen) when the show was in its original run, I probably never would have watched it. Now I'm wondering just how bad Who's The Boss and other shows of the era are/were.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just AWFUL
8 August 2019
I had no intention of leaving a review for this movie, but felt compelled after seeing 8 and 10 star reviews. I cannot convey how horrible this movie is. I accidentally stumbled upon it on TV, and couldn't stomach it for more than a couple minutes. I've seen Scott and Silverstone do decent jobs in other movies, but apparently even they couldn't salvage the disaster that is the script for this. It's just complete trash. I get that it's a kid movie, but it's beyond amateurish. Everyone involved should be ashamed. I actually can't believe it scored as high as it did - BY ADULTS. No, just... NO!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Martial Law (1998–2000)
1/10
Seriously???
3 August 2019
How is one supposed to believe a middle aged, very overweight guy is a deadly martial arts expert? 😂 It's not a bad premise, but they TOTALLY miscast the lead. I'm shocked the rating is as high as it is, considering this entire show was just laughable.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just AWFUL! AWFUL!!!
25 June 2019
I seriously don't understand how this movie got any reviews with anything over 5 stars. I seriously feel bad for the people who rated it 8 (let alone 10). What are their standards/tastes? These people are allowed to vote and drive, and clearly don't have the faculties to do either.

This is just unimaginative, predictable, EXTREMELY forced, and... frankly painful to watch - not the least but funny. Yes, the original was dumb, thus the title; however it was at least unique and goofy and, although low brow, had a few decent laughs (if nothing else because it was unexpected). For the sequel, they just reheated the original, took out any charm, and dialed up the crudeness by 10x.

Even watching this for free on TV I feel cheated. Honestly, I don't know how they convinced Jeff Daniels to do this. I know Jim Carey is trying to revive his career, but this just hammers home that he's a one trick pony whose antics are tired and outdated.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Matrix (1999)
10/10
Redefined science fiction
28 May 2019
I know that this is an older film, and the effects are kind of out dated, but at the time, it was absolutely revolutionary. Things like "bullet time" were invented to be able to make the story come to life. It has inspired so many filmmakers; not to mention its influence on pop culture in general.

It's a perfect blend of sci-fi and action/adventure (kung fu especially). Sure there are a few plot holes, but things like humans being used as batteries had to be changed to make it more accessible. Apparently the concept was originally to use humans' brains for their computing power, but the studios thought that would be too confusing for viewers.

It truly was a game changer. The sequels definitely went in a different direction, and unfortunately the Wachowski's other efforts haven't lived up to the high bar set by The Matrix, but I can't say enough good things about this movie. Obviously no movie is perfect, but The Matrix is a fun, inventive, action-packed blockbuster of a movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not bad (for a kids' movie)
28 May 2019
I don't even remember why I watched this movie. It was on TV, and I suppose I wanted to see just how bad it was. It actually wasn't as bad as I was expecting - I mean, it's based on an app... It's obviously meant for kids and "tweens", but for a kids movie, it's actually not bad. I have no idea how it got 10's (certainly didn't deserve that), but if you have to watch it to appease your kids or nieces/nephews, you're not gonna sit there wanting to pull your hair out or pray for it to end. Definitely better than Spongebob or some of the other insufferable tripe that's out there.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Raising Hope (2010–2014)
8/10
Quirky but funny
26 May 2019
It may not be the smartest written comedy, and it probably helps that I began watching it as early morning reruns, but there's something very endearing about the quirky characters. It's definitely goofy, but it's also quite funny. It definitely doesn't take itself too seriously.

Martha Plimpton and Garret Dillahunt in particular do fantastic jobs. Some actors, while talented, don't have much range, but Martha and Garret both do a great job of creating characters vastly different from their other projects. I've seen Garret in a few other films and TV shows since where he's played the villain, and had I not seen him as "Burt" first, I would probably think differently about him - as many lesser known (or less versatile) actors are cast because their personalities have a certain similarity to that of the character. There's a reason for type casting.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wow!
12 May 2019
How did this guy get his own show? It's so bad I came to his IMDB page to see if maybe he was a comedian I just hadn't heard of or if he was as inexperienced as he seems. His page does in fact show he hasn't done anything of note. He may be funny on his radio show, but... if so, it doesn't really translate. I doubt this would be successful on YouTube.

El Rey has a great lineup of reruns - which is actually how I learned of the network in the first place. I give them credit for taking a shot at original programming, but this one is a misfire. There are a number of other people out there who would be quite entertaining if given their own show - maybe Gabriel Iglesias (just off the top of my head) if they want to stick w a Latino host?.

I feel like a jerk giving such a negative review, especially when there aren't any other reviews. I even re-read my review and toned it down because I felt I was being too harsh. It's just... not good. At least he has other endeavors to pursue.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
El Rey Nation (2019– )
1/10
Really missed the mark
12 May 2019
I feel bad, but this is just a boring show. I only got about 5 minutes in (one of their "lightning round" sessions) before I had to turn it off. It was their fake eulogy to Super Nintendo that really killed it for me. The "eulogist" was pretending that SNES was a childhood friend of hers and acting choked up while trying to be funny. It was just amateurish and honestly kind of cringeworthy.

The panelists seem nice, but I've never heard of them before, and any expertise any of them may allegedly have just didn't come across. It was like watching a couple friends off the street talk about who was better: James Bond or Jason Bourne/Backstreet Boys vs N'Sync. And again, their opinions really weren't compelling or insightful enough to warrant giving their opinions any sort of merit. Nor were they funny enough to sit and watch just for entertainment. It was almost like that shortly lived TV show of people watching other TV shows and talking about them - only less entertaining. At least those people had funny remarks about what was going on.

They film in front of some sort of audience, but you literally only hear two or three people clapping offscreen. So, I don't know if they just haven't been able to wrangle up an audience (which is telling - and understandable after watching it) or they were as unamused as I was. I suppose it could be the crew clapping, but then why treat them like a studio audience?

It's not a horrible idea, it's just not well executed. I like that they're "regular joes", but they should at least be funny enough to want to hear what they have to say. So, ironically, the one thing that makes them different is also their downfall. I think I watched the 2nd or 3rd episode, so it's possible they're just nervous and haven't found their groove, but they're so green it really seemed like they'd not been in front of the camera before nor had much experience discussing the topics - kind of like going to an open mic night at a stand up club.

I feel bad giving such a poor review to a fledgling show on a smaller cable channel, but it just wasn't entertaining enough to want to watch, let alone tune in on a regular basis. And I was watching a recorded episode because there was nothing else on - I didn't turn it off to watch another show. I hope they find their groove and prove me wrong, but... It made Chelsea Lately look like The Tonight Show.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Definitely not Back to the Future
5 May 2019
I knew it was a mockumentary, but given it was about time travel, I really didn't know what to expect. It's definitely an interesting (if not confusing) endeavor. A second viewing would probably be best, but I honestly don't care to re-watch it.

It's definitely more on the level of a student film than an independent film. Probably the most distracting thing is that some of the actors are just not convincing at all. It really takes you out of the "documentary" feel. It's definitely slow paced and subdued, like many History Channel shows. It's definitely more cerebral than any sort of thriller or action film, but its take on time travel paradoxes and consequences is definitely intriguing. It does take a while to get started, as one reviewer mentioned, but that's necessary for the story to be told. You do have to go in w a willing suspension of disbelief, but, come on, it's a "time travel documentary", you can't expect it to be completely sound to the laws of physics. Just enjoy it for what it is.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not Quite Human (1987 TV Movie)
5/10
Doesn't exactly hold up.
4 May 2019
I have to admit, it's been so long since I've seen this movie, I don't know how accurate of a rating I can give this; however, based on what I remember, it was pretty bad. Even at like that p or 11, I thought it was cheesy.

Although, it didn't dawn on me until just now (after being reminded the movie existed) that the thought of a single, older man building a young teenage android has some deeper questions that need to be asked, lol. 🤔
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stargate: Atlantis (2004–2009)
5/10
SG-1 it is not.
26 April 2019
I only watched this show because I was such a big SG-1 fan. Even though it takes place in the same universe, and even has crossover characters (including Col. Samantha Carter helming the expedition for a full season), it was quite a large deviation from what made Stargate: SG-1 such a success. The characters aren't as likeable - sure, Col. Shepherd has the same 'cockiness' that Col. O'neill had, but w/o the same dry sense of humor and military know how. I know McKay is used largely for comic relief, but I for one prefer being able to root for characters like I did for Carter and the rest of SG-1. In fact, I didn't mind it when they brought Ben Browder in to replace Richard Dean Anderson, and after a few episodes, forgot Anderson was missing. Even Vala became endearing to an extent. I think Ronon is their version of Teal'c (more so than Teyla), but again, he just didn't have the same charisma that made you care about the character and want them to escape peril.

Even the Wraith are just a goofy enemy. They're basically vampires that are somehow a hybrid between a human and a bug (?!). Enemies that are given far too much power, and that are defeated more out of sheer luck than intelligence, cunning, and dogged determination. The whole idea that their formidable technology is organic and basically grown is fairly silly. Even though the Wraith weapons prove to be superior, the SG team never commandeers any of them, and instead relies on conventional firearms, even though they are useless against anything other than the masked foot soldiers who are gunned down like Jaffa. I know SG-1 kept their sidearms when going up against the Gou'ald and Ori, but they at least incorporated Gou'ald & Asgard tech in their ships so they at least stood somewhat of a chance at defeating the enemy.

Maybe it's unfair to compare the two different franchises, but given Atlantis is a spin-off/sequel, it feels like it should try to improve upon the source material, which it just doesn't seem to do.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stargate: Atlantis: Vegas (2008)
Season 5, Episode 19
1/10
SGA: CSI
26 April 2019
I don't know how this got so many high ratings. It's a bad homage to/knock off of CSI. Down to the cut aways and establishing shots, and the entire filming style. The ONLY element of the whole Stragate Atlantis universe is the presence of a Wraith (on an alternate Earth). It turns out the entire episode takes place in an alternate universe (Col. Shepherd is a police officer instead of in the military) - as stated in the synopsis.

It was just a very odd "artistic" choice that, for me, did not translate well. I don't know if it was a different writer/director, or if they wanted to take a chance and try something different since it was so close to the end of the series, but I didn't care for it at all. Even compared to the rest of the latter part of the series, which felt rather lackluster, I just thought it was cheesy and poorly executed. Apparently some people did enjoy it, so... it could just be me.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
PS
21 April 2019
I tried to add to my previous review, but couldn't seem to. So, this IS NOT a duplicate. I thought it was warranted to add something. I noticed the VAST majority of the good reviews are either:

1) Based on the 1st episode (which is just not enough to judge a series or develop any sort of fair/balanced opinion) OR 2) Duplicates! I noticed a few reviews (that gave the show a "10") are duplicates. Some even w the same username and are verbatim repeats of other reviews. Hopefully IMDB will take them down...
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rel (2018–2019)
1/10
👎👎👎
20 April 2019
It's pretty bad when you can tell a show is a bomb just from the previews. Usually previews show the funniest parts - to the extent that when you see the full production, it's a let down. The people who rated it "10" were only trying to offset all the "1" star ratings. I highly doubt they actually think it's a 10. Even shows I love and watch regularly, I usually rate 8 or 9, because there's room for improvement. Speaking of the reviews, I couldn't believe how many were illegible because of a complete lack of any sort of punctuation (literally just a paragraph w/o as much as a comma or period). Just lends that much less credence to those positive reviews.

And I love how some people said they couldn't use a laugh track because it was filmed in front of a studio audience, lol! Like they can't add it in after. That's like saying any show that's filmed live was done in a single take and there was no editing. The only show on TV like that is SNL. I couldn't tell you how many shows are filmed in front of an audience, with legitimate laughs, yet still add in a laugh track in certain points.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mama's Family (1983–1990)
4/10
Bad
20 April 2019
As I said earlier, it's just a bad show. I don't think it can be blamed on her association w the show (given the success of Rue McClanahan and Betty White), but I sadly recently recognized "Naomi" in a non-speaking, 1 second role on a rerun of another sitcom that was less than stellar ("Raising Hope"). Although I will say Raising Hope is by far funnier than Mama's Family; which should say something.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hee Haw (1969–1997)
1/10
Trash
20 April 2019
I have to admit, I really don't remember much of anything about this show - I was a kid when it was on; however, I remember even as a kid thinking it was just stupid and "hillbilly-ish". I only caught it because my one set of grandparents (admittedly less than Ivy League) apparently watched it.

That being said, I'm astonished it ever made it to air, and am more than a little embarrassed to admit anyone in my family tree watched and enjoyed this show. Thankfully my paternal genes are apparently dominant.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mama's Family (1983–1990)
4/10
Didn't age well
20 April 2019
It's kind of funny; I remember watching this show as a kid (I believe in reruns), and remembered it being somewhat entertaining; however, I just caught an episode in syndication, and... WOW! It was BAD. I actually logged onto IMDB to see what the rating for the show was, and to see on which network it was originally aired (thinking it was cable or lesser known network). I was astonished to learn it was on NBC when it originally aired. I don't know if it just hasn't aged well or was never funny to begin with. Considering NBC ended up w such fantastic shows as Friends and Will & Grace, I'm pretty surprised they let this one through. And for more than a couple seasons. But, then, it is also the network that brought us "Joey" (shivering in disgust).

I'm wondering if it was packaged along w Hee-Haw or something else equally low brow.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Just not funny
9 April 2019
I just watched this on demand, I can't believe how bad it was. I'm laid up at home with a bad back, so figured this would be a fun way to waste the afternoon. Even going in I expected it to be silly/stupid, but expected it to at least be funny/entertaining. I ended up playing games on my phone and largely ignoring the movie because it just didn't hold my interest. I feel bad for people who actually paid money and watched this in the theatre.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed