Change Your Image
OneAnjel
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Island (2023)
Great fight scenes and community values
This is a surprising film with fantastic scenery, good videography and soundtrack, and really great fight scenes. I loved seeing the authentic buildings on the island. Some of the acting was really good while some was very mediocre but nonetheless for me this was a surprising little film that really entertained until the very end. I never even stopped once to see how much longer it was. Michael Jai White is such a hottie so of course that's who caught my eye plus the title- who isn't interested in islands? The actress who plays Nora, Cami Storm, did an excellent job, her emotion was so authentic. And Mark's ex-wife (apparently Michael's real life wife) was a real badass. There is really so much depth in this film and although some parts are a little slow and some of the dialogue shows a lack of experience, I highly recommend this film if you enjoy a good fight or a good righteous ending. A definite piece of entertainment that will remind you of the good times before CGI took over. The ending is fantastic where the whole village comes to fight.
Experimenter (2015)
Elementary biopic with pedestrian filming
I appreciated the simplistic way it moved through the timelines, and I thought it was interesting that the director opted to make it seem as if a Broadway play at times with black and white backdrops. I also note the elephant in the room, and the little boy showing up in various scenes to remind us that adults are just the guardians for our future generations and perhaps to say that childhood is where the brainwashing begins.
But all in all, this was a extremely elementary review of the actual experiments. I think anyone who found this film eye-opening or profound has been in a dark cave somewhere. Most of what we have learned here has been known for many decades.
One might wonder at the timing - in 2015 the blue party was already trying to paint the red party as some sort of Mind Control platform. We can now take a collective sigh of relief in late 2024. Which is a good point to insert this quote from the film:
"They plod on because they're politely told to. The results are terrifying and depressing. They suggest the kind of character produced in American society can't be counted on to insulate its citizens from brutality and inhumane treatment in response to a malevolent authority."
Thank goodness we were not in that category.
But the film itself left a lot out, or maybe it was the experiment. Because don't we have to look at why people were so willing to see one person as an authoritarian figure? That has been a question in our school system for many years - and we now are recognizing the brainwashing that is being done to our children on levels never seen before. I remember being a child in the 60s and 70s and I remember that we were punished for taking any initiatives. Having thoughts of your own was called "back talk" or being sassy. We always had to get permission to do anything. I think there's a fine line between being a puppet and being a heretic. We do need to teach more people how to stand up for right versus just move forward with wrong regardless of their own inner consciousness.
As a child who was bullied in school, I don't like bullies and I don't like people who try to trick me. I would definitely not keep sending electroshocks to someone where the original instruction was that the money was mine no matter if I stayed or if I left at any time during the experiment.
I think if you look at the actual experiment and not just this film, you'll find that most the people who continued with the experiment and delivering the shocks were themselves trying to find some way to take charge and help the person on the other side to get the right answers. This is not showing in this film except for one participant who was emphasizing the correct answer verbally.
The film itself however leaves a lot to be desired - it was boring & the music was underscoring the slow plodding movement of the film. If I didn't know better I would think that the producer simply owed a film to someone and quickly scrape this together to fulfill a contract. The fact that there are several recognizable actors is a little disconcerting, if you ask me. It's the only reason that this garnered any attention.
The other thing that I would take note of is that all of the criticisms were people who just simply didn't like being experimented on and felt that it was inappropriate by claiming they thought it was inappropriate to shock people. This is a good example of how the media will take the truth and twist it and make people think something else is happening.
I also note that all of the 8, 9 and 10 star reviews on this particular film, for some reason, seem to feel the need to provide a synopsis before they get to their actual opinion. I don't know, maybe you can tell me - why is it the people come to review a film - in other words to give your opinion on the production - but feel the need to provide an outline as if they are Roger Ebert. 😅Just food for thought there.
The Interview (2014)
Pork rinds and potty humor
Pork rinds are one of those things you either love or hate. That's what this style of film is as well. If you likes jackass or Harold and Kumar this might be right up your alley. It's a little below Night at the Roxbury or Idiocracy. The premise is actually intriguing and reminds me a little bit of things like The Boys or even Boston Legal where the more educated are making fun of the less educated but the less educated think that the show is making fun of the more educated. So there were some intriguing aspects for me originally and the show seems to make everyone out to be complete idiots overall. The deprication and sarcasm are top level. But there was just too much crude teenage humor to make it into the category of things like Dumb and Dumber or Goldmember which were crude but entertaining where the potty humor didn't drown out the storyline the way this film does. There should be a separate category of Comedy that announces the extreme teen-level potty humor that you find in movies like this. Something like EI-R for Extreme Immature-Restricted. Or MBS for Must Be Stoned.
Baywatch (1989)
The early part of the series was family oriented
I've actually never watched this show before, it was just so overrated for so many years & advertised towards men. Kind of like how Charlie's Angels was ruined when Farrah fawcett did what was at the time a soft p*** poster that ended up in everyone's bedrooms. You kind of just say to yourself, well that's not within my realm of morality, and you compartmentalize into taboo/late night/no kids.
But I decided to take a look at it because I've always loved beach movies, I'm a big beach fan myself, I love everything about the ocean. And here it was free all over every platform. So I looked at a few of the seasons - in the earlier seasons it really seems family oriented there isn't anything overtly sexual or gory or violent but nobody knew about it then because it wasn't the big turn-on that it became eventually. Early stages were just pretty ordinary people mostly of the attractive variety with normal average bodies you would find in a gym or any fitness studio. You could actually say that it's kind of a Charlie's Angels on the beach but with hot guys also. They have everyday problems that may seem a little over the top at times, they have rescues that are moderately well orchestrated. The acting isn't very good, the music is horrible - but it was not unlike many of the other shows of that time as far as acting, dialogue, scenes. But the scenery was a big upsweep from the standard show of the day where it was always set in a house or an office or a corporate building.
Somebody mentioned that everybody does look like that on the beach and so hey it's not a big deal lol but I must admit that I've been to a lot of beaches and very rarely do you see that many good looking people all in the same place. There was also a mention that Xena warrior princess might have come to be because of Bay watch opening doors so to speak. But I think they don't realize we've had the sexualization of women for many years starting with Petticoat junction in the '60s as well as Gidget, and then I Dream of Jeannie, Wonder woman... In fact Xena is a spin-off from the earlier series Hercules. I could name several others as well but my point is that this is not really new per se except that in the later series of Baywatch we are presented with Pamela Anderson who is more of a sex object than just a female. I think that made it more popular to some people and less popular overall because it was no longer allowed as family viewing. I mean, when you think of shows like 3rd Rock from the Sun or married with children, those are extremely vulgar in many ways but there wasn't the same sexualizing among the females who were the most appealing. Imagine if they had put Sally or Kelly in super revealing outfits in every episode - mothers would not have allowed those shows to be in their family room despite that there were excessive negative ideas expressed verbally.
Some reviews mention the low budget on this show however I am not so sure - there is a lot of high budget equipment as well as underwater scenes that are expensive to film.
In the later seasons, it did really become too much about Anderson and too many sort of short videos that lingered on bodies, and hasselhoff really thought too much of himself in the later seasons where we see far too much of him.
It's not horrendous, it is entertaining but it does have a lot of what now looks like bad acting, bad dialogue and so forth. I think for its time though it was right up there with shows like Friends or Three's company and so forth. The music is really bad though.
As the last remark I'll just say that Anderson is unrecognizable now, in part because she apparently has the confidence to go without her hair and makeup done just to feel young again, which I can admire. But the truth is the look they brought with her onto Baywatch was from what she would find in a gentleman's club or even worse and the fact that this was pushed onto young women as actual beauty has changed the landscape of young women probably worse than the Barbie doll, which there's a whole psychological profile written about that. Beauty is different from sexual attraction. We should all strive to teach our children that both girls and boys.
Interstellar (2014)
simplistic, poorly contrived, overly long and technically inaccurate
I'm definitely a big Sci-Fi fan. But it took me three tries to watch this film all the way through over a period of years. I finally saw it on YouTube and read many rave reviews, so I forced myself to get past that first 20 minutes where I had stopped previously. I thought, maybe it's like Wolf Creek where the director takes us very slowly through an unnecessary getting to know you phase and then hits us hard with what he really wants the film to say. Interstellar does fall into that category but with less success.
Despite McConaughey and the plight of blight, it just didn't grab my interest - the music seemed intrusive rather than supportive and the characters were too one-dimensional with excessive dialogue yet lacking any comprehensive focus on the daughter and the paranormal activity in her room until much later. There wasn't enough explanation in some parts and too much in others. McConaughey whispered his way through the entire film.
I don't want to make this a verbose, pretentious review like most of the 10 star reviews are. I'm not going to toss out the director's name in every other paragraph. What I will say is the idea behind the film is not new - but perhaps something average movie goers may not be aware of. We have known for many centuries that mankind is expected to become more technologically superior as the years go on, and in the Life and teachings of the Masters of the far East we learn that what we call technology will one day be more of a paranormal reality, sort of like those aliens from the '60s who understood communication without actual verbal interaction. So for me the final aha moments of this film are a bit sappy and over the top.
In one sense the film manages to intermingle what we humans now call science fiction, such as black holes, with the paranormal reality that many human beings have been aware of through eons and tries to marry it together in a way that can only be told to a broader audience by this underdeveloped love between father and daughter.
In a nutshell, the film asks us to believe that Earth has become so uninhabitable that its few brilliant scientists are taxed with finding new planets for us to live on; and then we are asked to believe that the greatest scientist at the helm has already sent 12 people to their death and now has sacraficed his greatest astronaut & his own daughter as one final grasp at plan B. And amidst all that we are to believe that disembodied mentalists from a distant future have come through a black hole to save humanity by eventually placing Cooper and Brand together on a distant planet as the new Adam and Eve.
I'm not claiming there were no interesting ideas here or any poignant moments, I just felt it was not authentic enough or exciting enough for my standards.
I admit a lot of the low star reviews didn't understand the reality of some things, in particular they criticized the robot; however he is actually a true simulation of what robotics are doing in modern time including the design and the idea of sounding like a typical human. I work in the tech industry but it doesn't make sense to me that they think AI should sound like real humans. We've seen the problem with that in this last election where the strong censorship drowned out one party and the party in power were using AI all over social media that sounded and acted like real people. I'm of the opinion that we should have some way to tell real from created and one of the most significant differences should be voice and cadence. Otherwise AI is just a huge group of clones mimicking one person or one groups ideas and behaviors trying to turn their squeaky wheel into a majority. An all-terraine robot doesn't pose the same problem, though, & would be better company for a solo space traveler.
Clearly, for a lot of people this is a brilliant love story of sorts. But for me it was overly long, poorly filmed, vague in some parts and pompous in others, confusing and, ultimately, a wasted effort.
And the score was horrendous - tedious and headache inducing; not Hans best work. A different score could have helped this film while their decision to use the plodding tech sounds offered by Hans just because of his name proved to just underscore the problematic disconnect between scenes.
If you're one of those people who absolutely loved the films AI or Contact you will probably like this film. On the contrary, if you're someone who found those films to be overly simplistic, poorly contrived, overly long and technically & scientifically inaccurate you will not like this film either.
And while this film isn't necessarily about our destruction of the planet as much as it is about our ability to survive, there are many of us who will point out that Earth is a regenerative living being that only needs for us to stop preventing her from regenerating in order for us to thrive for many more millennia.
The Last House on the Left (1972)
I'm reviewing this film for what it actually is not what I think it should be
I was 12 when this film came out I remember thinking it was absolutely mind-blowing. My best friend and I went to see it and we were shocked and disturbed. Yes we were only 12. I'm not really sure who the target audience was but I will say that we probably weren't supposed to see it. But I do remember we didn't think of any of it as comical or amateur. We were shocked from one moment to the next. Those girls in the film were people we could identify with, and when the mother realized that the people in her house had killed her daughter and then took revenge we thought it was absolutely awesome. So to see that many reviews that are criticizing this film as ridiculous and amateur and with many flaws, all I can say is you don't get it and I've given you a thumbs down. This was Wes Cravens debut film. Yes it was amateur and we all might have some critique for it. But I always try to watch a film asking myself what is the director and writer trying to tell me instead of trying to criticize it for what I think it should be. In that sense, especially looking at the soundtrack, I think he wanted us to feel what the people on the screen were feeling instead of trying to make the audience feel a certain way. Yes there was some amateur acting but he got his point across and we all cheered at the end of the film. And Wes Craven went on to be one of the most celebrated horror filmmakers of our time. I can be honest now and say that when I watched it tonight 50 some years later I was shocked to realize what my 12-year-old brain had witnessed not to mention the things I didn't understand like the lyrics to a song about ending kids after having fun with them. But then again I read the Exorcist and saw the film, I saw Texas chainsaw massacre, I saw some movie called The sisters which at that time was in the same genre even though I can't find it now. Horror has been around for a very long time. As each decade passes and technology offers more things for filmmakers to play around with we see the result of that which is sometimes exciting in the time but may not age well. To look at this film for what it was in it's time, we have to admit this was a great introduction to the man who would bring us things like a nightmare on Elm Street, The Hills Have Eyes and Scream.
Bates Motel (2013)
a reimagining more than a prequel
It's an interesting series with great acting for the most part. I appreciate that it steers away from lecturing & shoving issues at us - it's completely focused on telling a story. However the actress playing the part of Norma seems miscast - for most of the first two seasons, we can't tell if she is trying to play it as a comedic role or if she just doesn't have the ability to seem sincere. I'm sure that whoever put this show together had it in their mind to make her seem like a somewhat normal woman in most senses while still being manipulative, controlling and inappropriately close to her son with a pathological need to lie, and a perpetual need to play victim. But as a psychology major, this doesn't compare to how parents who create real psychopaths do it. The series slowly edges Norman into more of a psychopathic intellect but they still try to paint Norma as a somewhat normal but dysfunctional mother in denial. I think they really missed the opportunity.
In the film this is erroneously named for, the mother was an abusive woman-hater who demeaned Norman for any normal thoughts toward women. The real Norman loathed his mother while having a malignant codependent relationship. It does start leaning more in the right direction finally in S3 but not before it starts feeling static and redundant. By season 5, I really couldnt wait for the end so that I can just see where the series leaves off juxtaposed to where the movie Psycho picks up.
But at this point it feels extremely redundant, slow; and starting somewhere late season 2 they made the unfortunate choice of filming most scenes in the dark to the point you feel you've just walked into a theater late and there's just a few lights to outline where the seating is. It's very difficult to watch making this a series I doubt many people will watch more than once. The only reason to continue watching it is because you've now become invested in the story.
Overall, it's kind of a soap opera not unlike Tin star or Ozark, and it failed to apply authentic psychology to its characters or, at least, they are not selling that to the audience successfully. Not only because Norma doesn't really fit the role of a parent who would turn her child into a serial killer but because it applies some pretty strange psychology on other characters as well including Caleb - perhaps not surprisingly - and then Romero which is a little more surprising. I mean we're watching a show about a kid who becomes a psychotic serial killer but the producers decide that everyone in town has a little psychopathy to them - some more than others.
It has some interesting twists and surprises but to have really pulled off the role of Norma you would have needed someone like a young Glenn Close or Rosamund Pike. Vera just makes Norma look like a dingbat. A true narcissist would seem much more cunning.
Norma starts in S1 looking very typical and makes an effort to be attractive but in S2 they've turned her into a frumpy Mrs Reed with 1960 style outfits and Vera looks rediculous in that over-processed platinum bob that elongates her already disproportionately long face. The idea that every male she encounters is attracted to her is totally unbelievable. S3 brings even more alterations with ratty hair and attempts to quell the over the top fake emotional reactions that were making the audience check for Comedy in the genre. This does help sell the part more but she is still not a convincing narcissist. Vera seems to be playing the part as if she's just stumbling into these situations and that's not realistic.
However, Highman is perfect in the role of Norman with great facial emotion and poker face, and his brother played by Thieriot also lends a serious and thriller style atmosphere to the show. The character of Romero is very well-cast.
Kenny Johnson as Dylan's father is diappointing after hIs grating role in SWAT but despite looking and acting exactly the same, this role suits him better. Ryan Hurst as Chick is a nice surprise - his distinctive voice tells us who it is even before we recognize him under all that costume. There are actually several well known actors in this series.
I was surprised that they're making it a modern story - you would think a prequel should be set in the 50s but instead it's set in the mid-2000s complete with cell phones and all the modern basics. Since it's aimed at more of a younger audience, they obviously need to identify with Norman and his surroundings to stay engaged. In that sense, it's a well done series overall.
However, each season actually seems less interesting in many respects, the repetition of expression and movements on the main characters becomes annoying. Once Norman manages to kill his mother in a docile manner, the following few episodes are almost boring with few points of interest and way too much dialogue with pedestrian style transitioning between Norma and Norman. With the dark lighting it's nearly impossible to enjoy.
Another thing that I noticed immediately was the house seems to be CGI on the outside. I've read the house was physically replicated for the series but clearly the CGI crew thought it needing touching up.
For the most part, the series does have a lot of intrigue and unexpected events and is worth the watch if you just want to be entertained. But there's no one here you can really root for or become attached to except Emma and Dylan and, honestly, the show does work to garner compassion for Norman, who is perfectly cast.
But be warned, once you get past season 3 You're going to need a very dim room so that your television doesn't get drowned out by the poor lighting.
Hunted (2015)
Eight for Intrigue with caveats
I found the Australian version on Prime and got hooked. In trying to post a review I found the UK version (and nowhere to leave a review for the Aussie version).
I thought the Australian version was extremely intriguing and it's presented in a way you can like both the hunters and the hunted. What I find about the UK version is that the hunters are quite unlikable, especially the lead character who seems to think he's witty popping out cliches every two minutes in his grovely smoker's voice. I also noticed the UK hunters seem to rely heavily on tracking phones & license plates and setting up traps, and there seems to be a lot of chubby unkempt women in this position. I'm a woman myself but I'm just more confident when I see someone in good physical shape and has personal discipline.
On the Australian version, there's a lot more basic intelligence on the part of the hunters and a necessity for them to be on foot actually hunting instead of sitting in their cars waiting to pounce; however, there's also a lot more of the hunters giving themselves accolaids, which becomes very annoying. In the Australian, the hunters seem to be required to wear black outfits and drive black cars giving the hunted a little more advantage. Because in the UK version, which appears to have come out first, there is a lot of disadvantage to the hunted.
I'm surprised to see so many people puzzled by the opening statement that powers of the state have been replicated. Some reviews even think it means that the show is staged. But what I've learned in the US watching many shows like Forensic Files, NCIS, Person of Interest etc is that hackers can do pretty much anything they want to, and as long as they have your permission as a contestant it's all legal. So, yes they can use software to track your phone and your car, to listen to your conversations, to interrogate strangers friends and family. Because I work in the tech industry I can assure anyone reading that these are very basic hacks that are easy to perform for a seasoned IT professional.
Some reviewers have bothered to go to the website and find out, apparently, that the contestants are required to keep moving, to contact friends and family at least once, and to use the ATM at least once. Obviously these are based on the fact that the hunters rely so heavily on tracking via electronics. What I find exacerbating is that they can block you from taking money out of your ATM. I would think if I was hunting someone I would want them to feel confident walking up to an ATM to take out money since that would be one of the only ways I would potentially know where they were. Why would you close down a bank account with barely 200 pounds in it, they're not millionaires who disappear if allowed.
So contrary to a lot of reviews I do think this is somewhat unscripted but based on some pretty unfair rules, as well. For instance the audience wonders why this person who seems so astute went ahead and contacted a friend or family member which ended up getting them caught.
The other thing that bothers me is that the military trained people always seem to be so unfamiliar with how electronic tracking works. As someone with a lot of military in their family (who mostly are extremely aware of how electronic tracking works), those are the ones I'm always rooting for. Yet those seem to be the ones that the hunters take the most pleasure in capturing.
Whichever version you're watching, you really have to go into it saying, Well this is a game and the contestants know it and the hunters know it.
Some of the reviewers seem to have the us vs them mentality of despising authority and rooting for the underdog. If you go in with that, then you're going to be pretty irate at some of the things the hunters do. And of course there's always that sense when the contestants do something that looks foolish and we either feel bad for them or say well that was not very bright. The people who seem to make it out are the ones who ignore that compulsion to visit family, to taunt the hunters, or to stand out in any way and are usually underestimated by the hunters.
By the same token I often find myself thinking the hunters aren't always very bright - they'll have six teams of groundhunters all on one side of the Bay and the pickup point ends up being on the other side. Now that might be scripted but from the audience perspective it just looks like they were not really thinking it through. I also think the Profilers seem very rookie. In a real scenario, a Profiler would be able to bait a fugitive not just toss out obvious escape plans.
At any rate I'm enjoying the show and my biggest gripe would simply be that they don't tell us up front what the rules are to have some idea what they're up against.
But you've got to have some faith that whoever designed the show placed the rules down so that they could manage some success within the 21 or 25 or 28 day period.
I'm giving 7 stars for the UK version but I actually think the Australian version is 9 stars bearing in mind there's no where to rate that version by itself as yet.
The Pretender (1996)
Extremely proceedural but interesting premise
I've honestly never heard of this show before seeing it on Prime. I remember the 90s very well, though, and The Pretender exemplifies the shows of that time - the perfectly coiffed specific poses on each main character instead of honest acting. Ironically, though, the cookie cutter format with genius-raised-in-captivity premise & poetic justice of each episode makes it very bingable.
Anyone who has studied psychology would point out that sociopaths are the crux of pretenders in any society and they usually aren't out righting wrongs. But the idea of a prodigy who can assume any professsion will always fascinate people.
In reality, those who can learn real vocations just from reading and pinpoint perpetrators by unrevealed clues are more likely Empaths - known as High Clairvoyant in the world of mysticism (and not to be confused with the modern psycological label attributed to extreme sensitivity).
Jordan is not particularly likeable or unlikable; he's more of a prop with 5 or 6 standard expressions & an annoying haircut that accentuates his overly long face. For being so brilliant, we wonder why he repeatedly keeps letting his pursuers get within feet of him & why they're pursuing him in the first place with no secret service or CIA helping. They're obviously assisting the government in military war efforts regardless what they call themselves.
Based on the many reviews, I'll assume most those questions are never answered.
I'm on S1 E12 and I'm pretty bored at this point. There's literally nothing new to bring us closer to understanding the key questions, just more of watching Ms Parker sucking on cigarettes and being nasty to everyone while the war monger who put Jordon through hell acts like he's enjoying Jordan's freedom as much as Jordan is.
I'm guessing they're all just huge plot holes that no one really has an answer for.
Point Break (1991)
Great wave action & great storyline but Reeves was a rookie here
Point Break is the first major film to use surfing as a main character. Some of the best scenes are the surfing and ocean scenes although there are some noteworthy chase and driving scenes. Reeves was very wet behind the ears here and you can see Patrick & Gary struggling to hold him up.
There's a million plot holes but I can confirm hanging ten was a big theme among young people in the 90s even if you didn't surf. Much of the slang we hear today is straight from that world, including Bro & Bruh, gnarly, rad, & hang loose.
It was a great film in its time but now feels very cheesy overall like most films in that era.
Killer Heat (2024)
Great scenery, familiar plot, decent acting
As a Greek American, I take offense with the reviews who claim this was a promo for a Greek vacation. Show me where films set in New York, Spain, or Cancun are accused of being desirable just because they are chosen as a movie venue. Rediculous. Greece has been in countless films since the beginning of cinema.
This film does have spectacular views of the island, the ocean, and the world of luxury.
JGL is a good actor who never really found his niche in the film industry after he became an adult, although he's been in some noteworthy films. Yet here, his co-stars are noticeably less seasoned which lends an almost amateur feel to the finished product. Richard Madden is nice eye candy and has been in some decent series. Shailene Woodley has been in several things that the reviewers seem to recall but I only saw her in Adrift where she was not that memorable. But in fact that's the only problem with Killer Heat - none of the actors really stand out although certain things do stand out about them, such as a British accent on twins who were raised on a Greek island who have a British mother with an American accent. But that's nitpicking.
The storyline is, however, intriguing and the plot moves at a comfortable pace. Although it isn't really very novel, it might keep you guessing.
The voiceover by Nick is reminisce of Dragnet's Joe Friday. There a definite noir feeling in the characters and plot.
The monastery was an interesting but sorely under utilized character.
I wouldn't recommend it, per se, but I didn't hate it.
Lethal Weapon (2016)
Good action but too convoluted
I thoroughly enjoyed this series for several episodes before I fell down the rabbit hole of reading review titles with the major spoiler - that should have been down in the body of the review. 🙄
Having said that, it is a great series in many respects. The first few episodes are especially good with a lot of action and a lot of witty lines and meaningful dialogue. As you get further in, the action is still very good but it's no longer the highlight of each episode and it doesn't really focus on the skills of Riggs as the daredevil. Nowhere in the series do I hear the term lethal weapon.
It tries too hard to put Murtaugh and his family as some sort of a centerpiece. Murtaugh is not likeable at all as you get further in. As well, his wife is very condescending and it's almost impossible to see what they are attracted to each other.
The whole series paints women as controlling divas. Trish actually brought her whole family back from Hawaii after being there for one night just to check up on her husband.
Where is the romance and enjoyable moments? All we see are these difficulties and challenges. Riggs and then Clay are both constantly embattled by the women in their lives. As a woman, I get so frustrated with all of these bad ars men having these women who don't know what for better or worse means.
By late season 2, I found myself bored and frustrated. They have brought in way too much dialogue, too many regular characters, and way too much focus on side stories with Murtaugh's condescending wife and entitled children.
The story has gotten so convoluted and so far out and left field by the time Crawford leaves the series. And although he is sorely missed and a better character, the character of Clay does a pretty decent job of picking right up and trying to save the series.
Unfortunately Wyans is the problem. While it starts off with Murtaugh being a somewhat believable pain in the butt who eventually forms a real bond with Riggs, they cause his character to become this vanilla snob no one can stand.
In fairness, it's much better at keeping the side stories impartial than, for instance, 911 or Chicago Fire where they're always constantly preaching about far left ideals and shaming people who don't have them. This series does stay pretty objective if you don't count the over-masculation of the women.
The introduction of Getz is clearly an attempt to add their own Saul Goodman. He's actually a good character.
I'm a little mad because I thought I had found a great new series but It feels a lot like a consignment store where you go in looking for great pieces but you have to weed through all the garbage that ended up on the shelves. My rating is a solid six leaning towards 6 and 1/2.
Secrets & Lies (2014)
We've seen this before
I wanted my title to be Another Bad Seed. But that would be a spoiler for most people. On every commercial break I see a message that says "an original story." So, I thought, if this is original then it's not going to end the way I think it does.
But it does in fact end just as I suspected.
I realized early on they were showing us that the little girl was a psychopath. Having said that, she's also probably the best actor in the series.
I stuck with it hoping for a surprise and trying to pretend I didn't know what was happening. But honestly, I wish I could take my time back. There was nothing particularly interesting here, just watching a bunch of people being set up as suspects - the angry wife, the irresponsible friend, the violent ex-husband, the menacing detective...
But those of us who've seen shows like The Bad Seed or The Good Son remember that the little sociopaths can turn on emotion on a dime and say strange things out of left field periodically.
I found Ted's ordeal to be more frustrating than suspenseful. He did a lot of outlandish things that I'm sure the director thought seemed appropriate for someone in his position.
Sadly, there are a lot of families in this situation, minus the murder suspicion. I'm talking about the angry wife who clearly has never treated her husband well judging by the way the daughter treats him. And then the spoiled little girl who, to unsuspecting audiences, seems like a true victim of circumstance.
I guess many people will say that the suspense was captivating and well designed.
But what I saw was someone with almost no self-control taking action based on his most emotional thoughts of the moment. And then actually keeping the flashlight while most intelligent adults would have thought whoever is trying to frame them planted it and would notify police to raid the house. Then he not only tries to throw it in the river but he includes his backpack that can be traced back to him. And how did the wife get over there to that fence so quickly and know that he threw something in the river?
If you ask me this is just a lot of bad writing and bad dialogue with acceptable acting and, as someone else pointed out, some eye candy if you're into that.
Troppo (2022)
Interesting but flawed character-driven mystery fare
The pilot really wasn't very good. It does not give us any background or plot; it just goes around introducing everyone with unrelated activities. The pilot hopes the one shocking event early on will compel you to click Play on E2.
Episode 2 is a little better- there are still some interesting aspects but there are many flawed aspects that are, unfortunately, a main part of the series as you move further in. For instance, the character of Amanda hardly seems a captivating main character.
Eventually, we are given a full background to why Amanda looks and acts as she does but the pitty party keeps circling back to exhaustion, especially in S2.
The story is very character-driven with the personal suffering of the main characters being more intrusive, at times, than interesting.
The reason Ted isn't with his family is senseless. Has he abandoned them or does he think staying away is for their benefit - and if so, why not all relocate together? It never really tells us.
The compelling part of the series is unexplained deaths surrounded by dark and menacing swamps and small-town mentality.
I initially gave it 6 stars but it's s just so slow getting from point A to point C and S2 is even worse.
We've seen this in a number of series in recent times such as Tin star and Ozark. It's almost like watching a documentary of a couple of people who are not really that interested in what they're doing - kind of fumbling around. There are long unnecessary scenes of someone spending several moments doing one thing as if a How To on youtube. There are many extended moments between clues, surprises, or points of interest that can feel like the director is disrespecting your time.
By S2E6 I was completely ready for the series to end.
The acting is very good from almost all of the actors. They all have a very authentic feel and the characters really sell themselves to the audience. It's just at the point where they're beating a dead horse with the same wardrobe, the same character, the same dialog over& over.
Overall, there is a compelling quality to the venue, the dialog, the surprises, and the atmosphere that can keep you interested. But S2 starts strong and then spends too much time focused on the rebellious Amanda somehow finding all the necessary clues by jeapordizing Ted repeatedly.
If not for Jane, I don't think I'd have gone past S1 E2. At the end of S2 I feel somewhat cheated. I was hoping for more. The writers focused way too much on Amanda who is frustratingly unlikable. Bringing Ted's family in served only to add extra scenes & dialogue that were pointless.
Idk if there's a S3 coming but I am taking it off my queue.
The Money Pit (1986)
This film did not age well
I remember thinking this movie was pretty funny in my '20s. Anyone who was an adult in the '80s knows the term Money Pit was one of the latest catch phrases of the time. Things were much simpler then - you worked the same job for 20 years, you saved up and bought a house that you'd probably live in for the rest of your life. Back then we had a lot of scammers who would insist on money up front and then not do the job or do it badly & gaslighting home buyers was common. There are laws now that try to prevent these - try, being the operative word. Spielberg has done so many great things since Money Pit and Hanks has a great portfolio. But this movie has not aged well at all. The schlapschtik (original German spelling) has not aged well at all.
This is what you call a gag film because it's just full of gags - there's no real plot and no meaningful dialogue. But there was still that American Dream back then of finding your soulmate and living happily ever after. So they do try to put that in the plot, the guy and the girl staying in love through thick and thin.
Another review thought it was terrible the house was destroyed for this film. I beg to differ - it's very unlikely they destroyed the house. In fact, in the trivia section it mentions that the house was actually for sale at the time. It also mentions that the facade of the house was recreated at the back of the house for the movie. To what end, I don't know. My guess would be that it was Hollywood magic that made it look like the house is falling apart.
Another review mentions that it's so ludicrous to believe that they would buy a house that had not been inspected or that so many things that seemed fine on their initial visit we're now not fine such as the plumbing or the bed. I have to agree that much of what this couple does is so outrageous and borders on stupidity that it becomes completely unbelievable.
But I'm sure Spielberg relied on the audience forgiving those aspects so that the antics could ensue. I didn't make it through the whole film this time, but I did think that the choreographed scene where Hank's ends up on the scaffolding covered in paint was pretty entertaining. Other than that, I thought Hanks and Long were not that believable although they're acting is not dissimilar to popular shows and films of the time including the Breakfast club, Stand by me, and Airplane.
The only way for me to understand the humor of this film now is to realize that it was released as a PG film in a time when families going to the theater all together was an important aspect of American life and people flocked to films like Honey I shrunk the kids and Short Circuit where antics were the main character with a bit of plot to center around.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010)
One of my favorite all time films
I'm not particularly a Cage fan but he really is great as Balthazar, & Baruchel really sells the part of Dave. In fact, the whole cast was great. I love fantasy and magic films so I can admit this follows a tried and true formula with the great master teaching the young clueless protege. But it doesn't feel plagiarized in any way. In fact, according to the trivia section this is based on a story from the 18th century which also was the basis for Fantasia. They also tell us it was Cage's idea to create the movie - which explains why he sold the part so well - and his own car was used as Balthazar's when the producers were having trouble finding the perfect vehicle . After watching this film the first time years ago, I even deemed one of my own unique rings as my personal wizard ring to wear when I'm feeling like life is just too uninteresting.
Also I'm the trivia section, though, it tells us the idea of using only 10% of our brain is a myth and I have to correct that. Unfortunately, most of guugle agrees but that's just a sign of the times - everyone eager to debunk fantastical ideas. The first time I heard this belief was from a man with an IQ of 186 who said that all humans have a similar capacity to think on his level but that most people are stunted in various ways. The people calling it a myth are correct in that there are no physical parts of the brain that go unused but that conclusion is not taking into consideration that the brain can expand the more it is challenged and really has no limits.
The other trivia I found incorrect is where it says "soda" should have been used instead of "pop" claiming New Yorkers call it soda. But until very recently (the 90s approx) it was called pop on most of the east coast or soda pop.
But otherwise, I do recommend a peek at the trivia section on this platform because there's fun interesting stuff I hadn't realized.
This is a film every fantasy connoisseur should see at least once.
Cirque Du Soleil: Without a Net (2022)
More of a homage to its dancers who suffered the most
For what it actually is, it's well done. But it's not really a documentary about Cirque du Soleil coming back into business and letting the audience see some of the amazing dancing and sets. Instead it's intros & interviews with the dancers & acrobats - who we see performing only in small glimpses - and corporate heads as they're plummeting into the abyss of the pandemic; and then the step back up after laying off over 1500 people who all struggled to put food on the table. It's very low budget. In the last 10 minutes, we are graced with a very brief peak at the final show, which was not as good as I recall from decades past - but in person, no doubt, spectacular.
I have no way of knowing their budget over the years, but I do know they charge a high rate to attend. You could attend a 3 hour concert for less. For the years between 2010 to 2022 they had been given permission by the Jacksons to use Michael's music in their program, which was one of their biggest draws in those years. This was against Michael's actual wishes because he felt he didn't want his brand to be over-sold and prevent people from wanting more. You must admit, he had a point. (After his passing, the family finally could saturate the market as they'd been pleading for him to let them do for years.)
But the pandemic was a horrible time for everyone. This film is made in 2022 before a majority of people became aware that the so-called pandemic was really just a common cold cousin and that the statistics had been severely dramatized to upset the smooth economy & push the lucrative jab. The CDC states only 0.03% of deaths were attributed directly to the virus without any underlying condition. It was an alarming wagging of the dog that I hope someone will answer for one day. We should all be angry for that.
I think this film will appeal to those who were in the Cirque du Soleil business and perhaps to other artists and dancers who went through similar situations. But I was disappointed at how little of the performances they felt this audience was deserving of. I didn't have any investment in hearing about each dancers home life and families and struggle, unfortunately. I am giving it five stars although I really didn't care for it that much.
This is the 3rd time I have to go through the time & energy to repost my review as someone is babysitting these and falsely reporting reviews they don't personally approve of. I'm removing stars accordingly. I'm very persistent because I loathe bullies. The appropriate way to disapprove of an opinion is to use the Dislike option.
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023)
Too much confusing unnecessary dialog w/too many obvious green screens
Was I the only one that was expecting Ethan to check for a mask when he found Ilsa laying dead? I'm not really sure where to begin except I will admit I probably have only watched Mission Impossible one, two and three until now. So I don't know what the last few prior were or how many there are all together. I'm much more of a Terminator fan, so I could tell you all of that franchise - or Rambo. In the final Terminator installment they did us the favor of admitting freely that it was more of a spoof and just for the fun of having one final hurrah without trying to be taken too seriously.
Terminator is also one of those franchises where most of us wouldn't show up if someone else we're trying to play Schwarzenegger's part. On the other hand we have Bond being played by now four different actors - which I can appreciate, if I'm honest. There's no reason not to put a new actor in the same role when the story is the franchise - like Batman, Alien, or Reacher. Now if the actor is the franchise, then it's a different story - for instance Breaking Bad, The Mask, & Mrs Doubtfire.
What I'm trying to get at is I think it's time for Tom to retire and let someone else take the reins, someone younger. Because when I watch a film like Mission Impossible or Raiders of the Lost Ark or even another Bond film, I'm not there to see old actors trying to act young and being surrounded by more old actors to make themselves look less old. I want to see younger actors who can match the energy of the script.
Cruise is actually my age so I have to admit he looks great for being in his early 60s when this was made.
Contrary to one review who tries to excuse the film by claiming they created it during the masking and sanitizing phase, I beg to differ because this film was made in about a year and that would mean that it was made in mid 22 to the early 23 when most intelligent humans had already done away with the masking and social distancing.
My biggest disappointments with this film are that I could see it was done on a green screen in many of the dialogue settings; I didn't feel that the action sequences were that impressive; I thought the CGI was overused. It was ridiculous to have them escape in a tiny yellow electric car and turn that whole scene into some sort of Laurel and Hardy farce. I also don't believe that an AI known as The Entity would be controlled by an old fashioned key, one which is reminiscent of Tomb Raiders or The DaVinci Code.
When the film first started, I was reminded very strongly of the new series called Fallout , which in my opinion is a little too artistic instead of delivering content. That's what it reminded me of when this first began and I think that that's the problem with this film considering that most Mission Impossible films strive to feel authentic. But here what we get is a lot of CGI and silly artificial intelligence that can make submarines appear and missiles come back at you and make you appear in a mirror like a vampire but not in plain sight. The fact is, some of those things can actually be done with technology but to try to cram it all into this film without any real congruity just felt trivial and thoughtless.
I will definitely not be watching part 2; part one was overly long with confusing situations and dialogue and too many older actors with no real appeal. The most interesting part of this film for me was when the bomb was deactivated and they had to go through some puzzle solutions to deactivate it.
I think if Mission Impossible wants to keep using Cruise they need to clone him into a younger version and, unfortunately, cloning humans is currently illegal all over the globe.
I will also agree with the review that states we are tired of hearing Jesus and God thrown around as if some sort of benign exclamation. In the Christian world, hearing OMG and Jesus over and over is not dissimilar to hearing the N word; it's worse than the f bomb. It makes us feel we are being singled out as inconsequential. You wouldn't dream of saying, "oh my Allah" or "Buddha" in the same frequent, careless way. Something to think about. It's gotten to the point where it's one of the most common phrases among foriegners who speak a nomonal amount of English.
I will also agree with the review that noted the dialogue was too quiet - we can turn up our volume except that when the action sequences suddenly come on there is this thunderous music that is 12 decibels higher than any of the dialogue. It's actually comical tbh.
I initially thought this is going to be along the lines of Person of Interest where there was an AI that was being sought by all world criminals and leaders in order to control the world. But there was not even much discussion of what the Entity was at all. This is already happening through social media to a degree much larger than most people will admit or, perhaps, understand. But there was no other mention in this part one - it was just all the key the key the key the key, which transferred between pockets like a persistent tick after a hunting expedition.
I fast forwarded a bit once I was more than a quarter through the film, and then a bit more and then once I hit around the 2/3 area I did turn it off. I am one of those people who knows when to cut my losses. I'm happy for Tom, that he's still a viable Entertainer and can get a nice big paycheck. And I'm thankful to Prime for offering it to me for free with my membership. I'm especially glad I didn't spend money in a theater to watch this garbage.
The Magnificent Seven (2016)
What's not to like?
First, I don't recall the original Magnificent Seven and probably haven't seen the Samurai Seven. I enjoyed this film for the acting and the action. I can see why some younger people might feel the story was not that solid, though. As someone who remembers when westerns were popular on black and white tvs, this film doesn't have the transparency that many from my generation are afforded by filling in the blanks from our knowledge of the old west themes, such as why a power hungry industrislist would need to shut down the town in order to mine the gold quickly or why old outlaws would be willing to die for one last shoot-out together against a man that did something violent to them in the past althougj , to me, it seemed obvious.
Also, having lived through many cultural changes, I don't see the cast as being PC whatsoever. These actors are all A-level talent who were chosen for their abilty first and foremost. The complaints that the film should follow the original in that sense is a bit silly considering the 1960 cast was culturally diverse for it's time.
I really enjoyed every character and I only wish the reviews acknowledged Bryan Lee (Byung-hun Lee) as much as the other stars. As one of Korea's most famous (and sexiest) actors, he's successfully made the leap into American film. Washington, Pratt, Hawk, et al all did fantastic with their characters. I wouldn't have chosen Bennet as Emma but she did an acceptable job. However the unnatural ruby hair should have been everyone's first hint that the film was not planning to be realistic.
I was hoping the survivors would now go claim the money of Bogue's but maybe they already knew where to find it and that wasn't clear too me.
Sam Morril: You've Changed (2024)
This is what offensive content means
I'm a big fan of stand up but so many comedians are disappointing. I'm not a prude and can stand some very offensive "humor" when other better material surrounds it. Morril is one of these, for the most part. The warning at the front says Course Language, but that's not really true; there's not a bunch of f-bombs or conventional course language. What he has is a lot of very offensive material about abortion and miscarriage, which the audience responds well to - and I'm just thinking wtf is wrong with our culture? There's also lots of the standard relationship fodder and sexual situations. He then spends the last 10-15 min reading text from an old flame who is stalking him, which while amusing and disturbing didn't belong in a stand up routine.
Morril actually had decent delivery and a few chuckle-worthy anecdotal one liners - most of which we've all heard or thought at some point. So there's nothing new here. It wasn't a complete waste of time but I wouldn't watch anything from him again.
Person of Interest (2011)
Intriguing bingeable procedural with too many twists and turns
In some ways, this show might remind you of any number of procedural crime-fighting shows yet I can't really say it is similar to any one specifically. It has elements from shows like Travelers, with the low-key vibe but also a little Batman energy with the wealthy guy who wants to fight crime anonymously (& the low voice, although that can get a bit annoying), and Fringe because of the unique way crimes are discovered.
I would not have thought these actors would work well together but Michael Emerson as Finch is a great character and Caviezel as Reese seems to fit the part - creates the character - perfectly. I really enjoy Detective Carter and Lionel is a great character - a down to earth guy who holds the show's comedic relief.
I also like a lot of the music they use on here like Live With Me by Massive Attack ft. Terry Callier
Now midway through S2 I have to remove one star because the intriguing premise has become too cookie-cutter with too much focus on these Joker & Riddler nemesis who turn up in every other episode. Instead of helping people, our dynamic duo are constantly being pursued by people who want to either aquire the machine, learn the identity of Finch, or kill John. It's getting really old. And the people they help invariably distrust them and think they can handle things on their own. As well, the characters are extremely one dimensional.
The worse development is that John has aquired a trained Malinois which they call a Malenoise (it's pronounced Ma-luhn-waa) who they keep in the apartment all day and never use on jobs! A trained Malinois like high level military use! What's the point of it being in the show?
I initially thought this was a great show. I can see why there's so many 9 & 10 star reviews. But those people didn't come change their review after getting further into the series, maybe.
I'll watch a bit more but I'm tempted to skip ahead and see if later seasons pick back up on the original premise.
Some reviews say we're near that level of being observed now. Perhaps. But if so, the social media platforms are certainly the matrix of the real life machine. All the 3-letter government agencies track people through them.
Update: so I did go ahead and watch more. It was quite difficult getting through the rest of season 2 and most of season 3. However in the later part of season 3 it does get a bit more interesting if only because the plot line becomes more tangible. They still never really tell us why Finch believed Root was in fact in touch with the machine so that for me is a sticking point, that we are just supposed to trust her now and not wait for the other shoe to drop. Finch changes personality quite significantly from someone who is a quiet diabolical genius with a goal to a mousey fearful doormat. In one episode around season 4 or early in season 5, they actually have transported the machine in a small briefcase and set it up in basically a basement where she then wakes up and thinks Finch and Root are threats because they have committed killings on her behalf. It's just so ridiculous. I can see why this series slowly fell off and didn't get picked back up.
But one of the most interesting things about Person of Interest is that we see into what the government is currently doing in 2024 through the media and social media. You really get the sense of having a secret lens into what is happening in our government and other governments and how the media controls people. So you have to wonder is this art imitating life or life imitating art? I can only surmise that it is art imitating life for the mere fact that the series Star Trek was art imitating life based on Gene roddenberry's extensive research on science and the paranormal before writing his script.
At this point, my two favorite characters are missing: Carter and Shaw. So I'm really just clicking Next out of habit. I think it's just gotten so ridiculous and I wish they had had a better writing crew because this could have been just an absolute cult classic in the right hands.
The Beekeeper (2024)
Good action flick, storyline is sign of the times
I've discovered I like Jason Statham and so I decided to watch The Beekeeper after seeing his Mechanic Revenge. I thoroughly enjoyed this film - it is pretty much non-stop action and intrigue. I felt that Emmy Raven Lamppost did a fine job as the special agent, I'm not really sure why so many people felt she was bad in the role. I think her character was very stoic and people didn't feel she emitted the correct emotion for being someone who just lost her mother. But you wouldn't find someone who's a special agent unable to compartmentalize their emotions. But one of the plot holes is that it's a conflict of interest for an agent to work on a case that involves one of their loved ones. But we'll put that aside because it's an important point for the end of the movie that she be the last person looking out the window.
I also note that several reviewers failed to see the potential realism in the plot and thought that Clay was just out for pure revenge. What they missed was that once Adam started looking into the scam artists on a larger scale, he realized that they were funding crooked politics kind of like what's happening right now with our installed administration. God only knows where they get their funding. But these huge scams are absolutely real and many times they do fund not only crooked politics but human trafficking, drug cartels, and foreign wars. So this is a very realistic part of this film.
As far as the theme of the beekeepers being this elite group, I think that is just a sign of the times - in other words there's so much out there in cyberspace right now about secret cults and special forces who do this or that and for good or for bad. So I think that's just something they decided to go with instead of saying that he was from the Navy SEALS or some other Elite unknown military force. Which I appreciated, to be honest, because we've all seen so many ba ddass characters that have a military background.
The other part that people aren't getting is that much of the film is tongue in cheek - at least the characters who come up against our beekeeper. Of course, it's not meant to be realistic so I'm not sure why any review would bother to make a statement about it not being realistic. I mean it's not a documentary, it's not on the History Channel.
I couldn't figure out who played the part of the new beekeeper in the pink opalescent coat who tried to take out Adam at the gas station, but I thought that was a strange character for being someone supposedly in this Elite Force who is allegedly in place to keep the hive on the straight and narrow. But this film obviously wants to throw in some interesting characters including Adam's final foe with the false leg who didn't really seem like a bigger threat to me than a full SWAT team who Adam easily made his way through.
The other big plot hole of course is the the president's son having the protection of an ex CIA operative who technically works for the mother but who failed to inform the mother of what her son was involved in. The fact that the son is such a twit is just part of the tongue and cheek aspect. I'm not really sure why the film decided to pretend this youngster with his limited computer brilliance was some kingpin or decided to make the mother the president of the United States - I know there's got to be some sort of humor or message in there somewhere.
I'm choosing to see the whole takeaway as yes we can truly drain the swamp even if it's just one Elite mf on the right side.
But as another review pointed out, it's not hard to just dismiss the various political inserts because there's no direct message one way or the other. It's just using the highest forces possible to show us what a incredible soldier The Beekeeper is, even taking out his own replacement.
I also thought it was a bit odd that they had someone so out of touch with reality managing an account with over $2 million dollars who was apparently so weak that rather than try to get it back she took her own life . But if I never see Priscilla Rashad in another film or TV show, she won't be missed. There are other older black actresses in the world.
This film has a lot of action and a lot of Statham wreaking havoc. If you just want a entertaining unrealistic action packed film, then I say go for it. I wish I could be part of the 99% who compare it to John Wick but I've never seen any John Wick films. If I have to compare Statham to anyone it would be maybe a James Bond meets Chuck Norris.
I've scoured over my submission three times for the alleged profanity IMDb is warning me could violate policy & apparently tanker with a W is profane while twit is not. Seriously?
Mechanic: Resurrection (2016)
Is Statham the new Bruce willis?
Honestly I almost turned this film off because it does start slow in an apparent attempt to justify Bishop's relationship with Gina. That actually fails to solidify, in my opinion. But as others have pointed out there are a lot of plotholes here. The action is very good and Jason is an incredible action star. I wouldn't go so far as to say hero and that's why I said is he the new Bruce Willis. Because if I would have said is he the new Stallone or Schwarzenegger I would have had to use the word hero. But he's very good. I think that he would have been better in the most recent James Bond films then the clown who was actually in them.
I wasn't that impressed with Jessica Alba, which disappointed me. I've heard her name so many times and I just assumed there was something special about her. But what I see is your standard blonde with teenage body doing a passable job on her few lines. I've seen models who were thrust into 1970s James Bond films do a better job at acting.
A lot of reviews don't delve into the plot holes - apparently we all know what they are? But I'm going to just point out that after he beat up the first woman who came after him to force him into the contracts, he then went out to this boat to help a woman who the entire audience knew was a setup - how come he didn't know it was a setup? And why was she treated so differently from the first woman? They were both just doing their job. So for me that was like an enormous plot hole. We don't really have any information about the woman who greets him on the island or what their background is or why he wouldn't just say to her "look their gas lighting us; they're really just after me".
The second big plot hole - or maybe it's the third cuz the second plot hole is him having feelings for the woman who tried to kill him - so the third big plot hole is why did he stay on the island once his location had been identified? Obviously Gina didn't find out where he was on her own. And then he even knows that he's being watched so he pretends to have feelings for Gina to gaslight the villains into thinking she's doing her job. Then all the sudden the feelings become real? Okay so let's get past that plot hole but now he's created another situation where if the villains think they like each other they might kidnap Gina. Okay so moving on...
The action is fine and most the dialogue is okay except for that 15 minute section where they're showing Alba frolicking on the beach and giving Jason googly eyes. Their love scene in the bed was silly because Alba obviously didn't do her own love scene and the actress who did do it had to keep hiding her head.
The scenery and venues are all fantastic.
I haven't seen Statham in the Mechanic, but I saw Charles Bronson and Jan-Michael Vincent in 1972, which was really good I don't think you can beat that. But at this point I'll probably go back and see Statham's version.
The Middle (2009)
Satire that's not for everyone
I love a good sitcom. I gave this a try because there's so little out there. I watched some of S1 & then looked at S6 a bit (seems to get worse). I reeeaaally wanted to like it. But there's just no chemestry between the characters. The actors can't pull it off. The only good character is Chris Kattan from Night at the Roxberry and the teen son manages to create a believable character.
People comparing this to Malcolm in the Middle must be referring to only the fact that both shows are complete satire and not to be construed as depicting real families. Malcolm ITM was leaps better - the cast had a synchronicity producers can only dream of and the actors each created characters that were believable and hysterical. I wish In the Middle had attempted to mimic MITM. But you can't replicate Jane's Lois or Bryan's Hal or Frankie's Malcolm.
I'm not a fan of Heaton but here they clearly try to mold her character after Lois and it just fails. Attikus as Brick is painful.
But not as painful as the reviews who say their whole family watched and identified with the whole family. That's like saying you watched Married with Children with all your kids and husband and thought it was modeled after your family. Please. It's satire, not real life. It dramatizes realistic situations by making them outlandish and making you feel like maybe your day wasn't so bad. Kids might sit through it but hopefully they understand its not real life, no more than the Brady Bunch in the 70s - which was aimed at families and mixed real emotion with the satirical situations. I'm surprised this lasted 8 (?) seasons. Clearly had a lot of loyalty from Raymond fans. I wasn't one.
Million Dollar Money Drop (2010)
Interesting premise but too dragged out
Hint: watch it on YouTube where you can stream at 1.25 speed. Otherwise it's an excruciatingly dragged out show about trivia: Which famous logo first appeared on the market; what sports team was most popular the year before...
Prime showed me this series after I watched The 1% Club. I'm not a gameshow person but I'm old enough to remember when the few channels on television - before Cable - always had things like Jeapordy and Wheel of fortune. Since then, I've checked out only a few episodes of things like Deal or No Deal, Who Wants to be a Millionaire or such. There's so much more to choose from in this century -- you're not stuck with The Weakest Link being the only channel that comes in. But if you like those shows, Money Drop will probably be enjoyable for you.
I found it entertaining enough to watch several episodes after going on YT Premium where I sped it up and could more easily ff through the long repetative moments of the couples yelling "drop" or harassing each other about which drop to choose. You definitly get the feeling that at least one mate between any given couple is seeing their partner in a way that's never been exposed before and wonder if their relationship can survive whatever demanding screams to place it here, not there, caused them to watch hundreds of thousands get sucked out of sight as it dropped into the black hole.
I liked the challenge of the trivia questions and I thought the idea of the money being sucked down into a black hole was intriguing. But the presentation wasn't that great. I'm not familiar with the host as an actor, really, but there was no added value from him. By E6, he starts chidding the couple about how excited they are, like it's weird, in a failed attempt to insert humor, perhaps. The wait to see which money perch actually drops is so long that by then you've changed your attention to some noise in the kitchen or checking you're email - and even if you're watching, the money drop is shown just for milliseconds and you're not really sure which one dropped until the camera finally pans up. It's just very frustrating and is designed to make the audience feel out of control, perhaps.
Like another reviewer mentioned, there should have been more than one couple per episode - the couple's get extremely hard to watch and predictable; most of the women act like they were doing lines right before they came on stage while the men focus on one aspect of a question and think they have the answer. I mean honestly, I can only imagine the adrenaline pumping through these couples as they envision themselves taking home the money and feel as if they're losing their personal savings. So there is a level of interest but I can see why this show didn't continue.
It's interesting that the producers didn't take notes from any other successful show like audience participation or lifelines, or asking simple things like is your family in the audience and then pointing out aunt Mary and uncle Ted. That could have added to the excitement and removed a lot of the redundancy and waiting. Also I think the host should have had something more colorful on, he was in all black each time and looked like a floating head. But I appreciated him more than the hosts such as on shows like Is It Cake who try too hard and end up being grating.