Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Awful!
6 March 2024
I'm a HUGE fan of Judge Milian. Watched her for years on The People's Court and absolutely loved her. She's super smart, knowledgeable, funny, compassionate and utterly entertaining. Like Judge Judy (another fave), she did not brook litigants' nonsense and lies. I loved when she threw the book at liars, fraudsters and idiots. I understand that The People's Court was cancelled, although I don't know why. Nevertheless, I'm very disappointed that Judge Milian has resorted to participating in a *scripted* court show. I presume it's about the money$. Justice for the People is truly awful. It's as if they've muzzled Judge Milian. And the actors/litigants are awful, too. But at least I can still watch the *real* Judge Milian on reruns of The People's Court. It's a thousand times better than this fake courtroom show. SMDH!
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hot Bench (2014– )
3/10
They're So NOT Judge Judy
6 July 2019
I don't know how this show has remained on the air for 5 years. Judge Judy created it, but these judges don't compare well to her. Perhaps it's their focus on achieving unanimity that makes too many of their decisions seem unfair. Oftentimes, I find myself agreeing with Judge Acker when she dissents. (Although she was never on the bench in real life, she's the best judge on this panel, IMHO.) Judge Corriero wears his heart on his sleeves, sometimes inappropriately. I was gobsmacked when he practically apologized to a pit bull owner for ruling in favor of the plaintiff who had sued her for damages related to an attack by the defendant's dog. Whaaat?!? Lastly, what's up with Judge DiMango and Judge Corriero's inability (or refusal) to call the litigants by their names. Every one is "you," "he," "she".... They disrespect the litigants by not bothering to address them by name. Plus, for those of us who aren't staring at the TV the entire time to see on whom the camera is focused (because we're multi-tasking), it's hard to follow along. Even Judge Judy, who is probably older than DiMango and Corriero, can recall and use the names of the parties who come before her. How hard is that? (And if it is hard, the show's producers should place name cards on the front of the podia.) "Hot Bench" is amateur hour compared to Judge Judy. She should give Judge Acker her own show and be done with it.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Skyscraper (2018)
4/10
Die Hard WannaBe Misses...Bigly.
23 July 2018
I'm old enough to recall when Die Hard opened in theaters and how thrilling it was 30 years ago. It's a great classic action movie and I never tire of seeing it. The comparisons of Skyscraper to Die Hard made it a *must see* for me on its opening weekend. I wasn't expecting high art, but I was expecting what D.H. delivered: smart, witty dialogue and an interesting and engaging story involving characters about which I cared and who were portrayed by gifted actors. Plus action. Lots of action.

Skyscraper only delivered on the action part. Nothing else. The dialogue was flat, uninspired and artless; the story ambled along with insufficient interest and suspense to really engage me; and none of the characters felt truly authentic or appealing (as good or bad guys). I like the Rock, but he doesn't have Willis's bad-ass cowboy snark, which really made D.H. fun to watch. That was probably at least partly due to Skyscraper's weak script. And importantly, there was no villain in Skyscraper to match the late, great Alan Rickman's Hans. Skyscraper's acting was ho-hum all the way around, which suggests to me that, in addition to being poorly written, it was miscast. My 4 stars are due to some pretty interesting visuals and special effects. But IMHO, they're not enough to justify paying $15+ for this movie. Wait for it to come on cable so that you can watch when there's nothing better on TV.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Wendy Williams Show (2008–2022)
3/10
Brief Love Affair is Over
14 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I stumbled onto Wendy's show earlier this year and was immediately attracted to Hot Topics. Truthfully, I'm a woman of a certain age, who's not into rap music and doesn't know half of the celebrities Wendy talks about. However, there were enough people whom I knew--e.g., JLo, Beyonce, Charlize, Sandra B, Charlie Sheen--that I enjoyed the scuttlebutt. And I learned about some younger/newer celebs of whom I'd never heard, like what's her name. (LOL!) While I always sensed some cattiness in Wendy's discussion of celebs, I found her self-deprecating humor and honesty about her personal life refreshing. For example, she often refers to her show as "stupid"; she pokes fun at the size of her boobs (which, frankly, are monstrous and distracting, but to each her own); she admits that she has struggled with drugs in the past; she talks about her nervousness every time her show starts; she claims to be afraid of tripping in high heels on stage; and she talks about being a foodie who gradually started eating healthfully and losing a lot of weight. So in many ways, she seemed down-to-earth, flawed and relatable, and I overlooked the meanness underlying some of her remarks. I liked her enough that I even flirted with the idea of ordering tickets to join her studio audience and going to her sit-down show.

But now I cannot watch her. In one stunning segment in which she likened Hillary Clinton to that devil incarnate, Donald Trump, I realized that Wendy is a liar. Full stop. No difference between Hillary and Trump? Wendy must have some nefarious motivation for telling that colossal lie to the world. What could it be? Perhaps, she's a shill for Fox and Rupert Murdoch, since they butter her bread. Money makes some unprincipled people say/do anything.

In the end, I cannot watch a pawn for Rupert's evil empire. What annoys me the most is that Fox is making a fortune off of shows that star black entertainers. Ordinarily, I would celebrate the hiring of people of color. But Fox's so-called "news" networks promote policies that are harmful and hateful towards people of color. Once Wendy--who is no dummy even though she plays one on TV--began advancing Rupert's political agenda by trying to influence the outcome of our presidential election, I could no longer bear to watch her show. Stick a fork in me, I'm done.
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2 Broke Girls (2011–2017)
1/10
Garbage!
3 October 2015
How on earth has this show remained on the air for 5 seasons? It's truly awful. The acting is amateurish and just terrible. The scripts are imbecilic and certainly not funny. The untalented and uncomfortable-looking actors don't possess sufficient talent to deliver a funny line even if the script contained one. If this is what a successful sitcom looks like, we're in big trouble. You'd have to be brain-dead to enjoy this garbage.

This show comes on immediately after my beloved Judge Judy, which is how I stumbled onto it at this late date. I can't change channels fast enough when I see the two stupid Barbie dolls begin uttering inane comments. Judge Judy is smart, knowledgeable and wickedly funny. Why would station programmers think that her viewers would want to segue into this "Broke Girls" trash?
13 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ice Loves Coco (2011–2013)
1/10
Enough Boob TV!
4 August 2015
C'mon people. Why do we need another talk show starring people who have absolutely nothing of substance, intelligence (or interest) to add to the public discourse? And frankly, I'm not interested in looking at a peroxide version of the Kommercial Kardashian Klan for an hour every day: i.e., kosmetically enhanced out-sized boobs/butt in clothes that are 2 sizes too small. Yuk! This sort of programming is classless, uninteresting, uninspired and, frankly, old. Next???

We can and should do better with daytime TV. Not every celebrity ought to have a talk show. My suggestion to Fox: find some talented, knowledgeable, fascinating and articulate folks for your next talk show. They don't have to be celebrities and they don't have to be plastic surgery creations who look like fake Barbie dolls. But they DO have to be INTERESTING. How hard is that?
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Purge (I) (2013)
3/10
Painful to watch
4 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
If you want to wallow in a crazy and pointlessly violent alternate universe for an hour-and-a-half, this movie may be for you. It's way to insane for my liking. Why is Ethan Hawke attracted to these miserably dark, depressing and hopeless movies--"Sinister" was another--featuring a "normal" family, of which he is the patriarch, beset by ridiculous and inexplicable violence? Sinister and The Purge have the same gloomy look and feel and the same grim music. Both movies are unpleasant to watch. My advice is to skip it. I'm waiting for Mr. Hawke, fine actor that he is, to return to making intelligent movies with a message...and, ideally, a touch of hopefulness.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Interesting idea; Poor execution
22 March 2014
This movie has an interesting premise. It's especially intriguing to a politics junkie, like me. But the screenplay and casting are awful. The story so often veers towards the ridiculous and improbable that it becomes cartoonish. At some moments, they insert comedic elements that suggest that the movie wants to be "True Lies." But they're mere moments and they don't fit/work.

Plus, the casting could have and should have been better. Anyone playing POTUS needs to have more gravitas and sophistication than Jamie Foxx can muster. He's simply out of his depth in this role. Maggie G. is a miss, too: not strong enough for the character she plays.

I understand why this movie performed so poorly at the box office. Awful!
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Waste of Time
2 March 2014
Just what we need: another court show with a quasi-judge presiding over family dysfunction. A "quasi-judge" is one who functions more like a social worker than a jurist.

We already have enough judge shows where DNA evidence is produced. Who is the genius who thought that we needed one entire show dedicated to DNA evidence? How boring is that?

If you're going to introduce a new judge show, judicial experience, legal expertise, extraordinary intelligence, quick wit, unique personality and charisma need to be part of the package. A pretty face and a JD simply aren't enough.
11 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Broken City (2013)
6/10
Okay Political Thriller-- Could've Been Better
2 March 2014
I sort of liked this movie mainly because I'm a politics junkie and because I'm very familiar with corrupt politicians given that I'm domiciled in New Jersey. This movie has some terrific actors: Jeffrey Wright (Wow!), Crowe, Zeta-Jones and Barry Pepper. They all give good performances here. The only problem is that the story-line unfolds too slowly and is a bit predictable.

But, what's up with Russell Crowe's grammar? Did Brian Tucker actually write the script with poor English usage or did Crowe ad lib the bad grammar? If the latter, why does Crowe think that a NYC mayor would talk that way? His use of pronouns made me cringe.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Enough Judge Shows!!!
5 January 2013
Judge Judy is the original and best--in part because she's wicked smart and also because she was sitting in family court in NYC when the rest of the TV judges were in grade school. None of the other TV judges can cross-examine (eviscerate) a witness as well as Judge Judy. Judge Milian (sp) is my second fave and there are a couple of the others (i.e., Judge Alex and Judge Toler) who are okay. But the rest of the TV judges are pretty lame. Either they don't know much law; or they are not smart enough and/or quick enough to make minced meat of the liars who come before them; or they lack sufficient personality (charisma?) to entertain; or they are essentially social workers wearing a black robe and sitting on a bench. Whatever the reason, we could do with fewer of them. That includes Judge Ross. Although he's easy on the eyes, it's painful to watch him discharge his judicial duties, such as they are. Most of the time, when he says "the gavel is going to come down in favor of...," I get the impression that he hasn't even made-up his mind yet. There's a pregnant, expectant pause that screams uncertainty. And his recitation and application of the law are on the light side. Perhaps that doesn't matter on TV. But, then, what's the point?
8 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed