Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
SEAL Team (2017–2024)
3/10
SEAL Team 90210
26 January 2023
Ugh. This show is awful. The SEALs are portrayed as being angsty emo types who pause in the middle of missions to debate morality and question their mission, while every mission seems to be an afternoon's work, bookended by drama with their wives and girlfriends. The show seems to make out the life of a SEAL to be a day job -- wake up in the morning with your wife, have breakfast, fly off to Kraznovistan to kill a bunch of bad guys, and get home in time to tuck the kids in and fight with the wife.

The supporting female actresses are all impossibly hot, from the CIA operative to the mother of five. It's as if real women don't exist in this world, just like none of the SEALs seem to know how to shave.

Overall, the show is a laughable interpretation of the military through Hollywood's skewed eyes.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A visual representation of "malaise"
22 February 2022
Like too many art house films, this picture is slow, listless, and pointless. Even such excellent acting talent as Bill Nighy cannot save it. I've lived in New York City and it's a much happier place than depicted in this horribly depressing film. If you decide to watch this film, do so with a licensed therapist beside you, or put the number for the suicide hotline on speed dial, because this film will leave you feeling like there is nothing worth living for.
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Lifestyles of the Young and Spoiled
30 June 2021
Ugh. This show is so bad. Imagine three spoiled yuppies given an unlimited budget by Netflix to do nothing but travel the world and show off everyone else's ostentatious displays of wealth. Now imagine that those three yuppies are basically uneducated - only Jo Franco has a college degree, while Megan Batoon is a YouTube star and Luis Ortiz is a disgraced former real estate agent - and sound like it. The dialogue is vapid and shallow, there is little exploration of the genuine settings of these rentals (at one point, the trio treats the island of Bali as if it were a Disney animatronic stage), and they honestly are just flaunting their own wealth and beauty and that of the people who own the rentals that Netflix is paying for. This show is, intellectually, barely a step up from the Kardashians and Honey Booboo and a step below "Cops". I only watched this because I had no choice -- don't make my same mistake!
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fallout: New Vegas (2010 Video Game)
7/10
So much to do!
3 May 2019
New Vegas is an excellent addition to the Fallout panoply. Having played the originals up through Fallout 76, F:NV is one which always comes to mind for its flexibility. You can do so much in this game, and there are (as someone else stated) no "good guys" who obviously need your allegiance. My only complaint, honestly, is the music. For reasons unknown, the developers chose the most listless, dull, depressing country music they could possibly find. Other than that, the game is nearly perfect.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Almost Human (2013–2014)
10/10
Why does FOX hate good sci-fi??
10 April 2018
In an almost uncanny repeat of its mishandling of Firefly, FOX gave us Almost Human... and then taketh it away. This show was terrific, featuring an excellent cast, timely themes, and a near-future setting that was just enough "wow" without too much "whatever". The loss of this series just 13 episodes in left a tragic gap in current sci-fi television that has not been filled since.
24 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I've never seen Frozen, and now I never will.
10 April 2018
If "Frozen" is anything like this insipid, inane short, I want nothing to do with it. The characters, especially the snowman (Olaf, I presume) were grating and annoying, the music was unmemorable, and the plot was below preschool-level of intelligence. After seeing so many of Pixar's excellent shorts, especially "Bounding", this was horrific. Now I'm glad I never had to sit through "Frozen".
1 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An example of a story co-opted for political purposes
10 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Ava DuVernay is best known for her directing of "Selma", an excellent film about the civil rights struggle in Jim Crow-era Alabama. With AWIT, DuVernay appears to have tried to continue her personal civil rights march by way of creating a children's film that is chock-full of good messages for young girls, especially minority young girls.

That's an honorable intention, but it's unfortunate that she decided to advance her agenda using the name of a well-known, well-loved children's book. Because that's what this is: DuVernay changed Madeleine L'Engle's story in severe ways to promote her own message instead of Ms. L'Engle's. DuVernay made the focal point of the story a young black girl's life struggles, which was not the point of the original novel. That would be fine if she had created something new and original, but a lot of people who grew up loving the original book were rightly disappointed or offended by the changed focus.

The film also has a misanthropist (anti-male) slant that was off-putting to my family; none of the male characters are remotely competent, and nearly all of them betray the main character at some point (Murray disappears for four years, Calvin eats the beach food, Charles Wallace becomes the bad guy) or are simply evil in their own right (the It is... itself, Michael Pena kidnaps Charles Wallace, Calvin's dad is verbally abusive to him). Even male characters who are minor players are portrayed as helpless or ineffective (Zach Galifianakis's clueless guru, Principal Jenkins). The movie's heroes are all women, period, and that cannot be by accident. Just as telling is towards the end of the film when Ms. Who is naming off legendary heroes, all except one were non-white. Again, this cannot be by accident, and is just as wrong as it would have been if all the heroes she had named were white.

There are plenty of other posts about the poor acting, awful pacing, lousy direction, and overuse of facial close-up shots (DuVernay uses close-ups with the same proliferation that J.J. Abrams uses lens flare), so I won't go into those here. Suffice it to say, this movie is AWIT in name only
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Ponderous, bloated, and disappointing.
4 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I was disappointed. This film was just so boring. It seriously needed an editor with the intestinal fortitude to hold the director accountable for so much wasted time and aggressively cut out a lot of the interminable pauses and long lingering shots.

The story line was okay, and the film was not horrible in a "Phantom Menace" sense. But it was soooo slow and was flabby -- it should have been an hour shorter. The director and editor lacked any sense of self-discipline.

As we were watching it, I was thinking that the director had watched the original film and thought to himself, "This film has a few lingering face shots, a lot of heavy architecture, and some jarring sound effects. We need to kick that up by a couple orders of magnitude. Let's have an hour's worth of lingering shots that make 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' look like 'Fast and Furious'; a bunch of nude statues in a permanent dust storm; and that dubstep track that my cousin recorded during his last meth binge playing over and over."

Why did the director spend a 10-minute segment on Joe having sex with a prostitute overlaid with a hologram? That scene could have taken 90 seconds to 2 minutes, tops, and still been just as impactful.

How much time was wasted watching Joe look at the tree? Or looking at the furnace where the wooden horse was hidden? Or with Princess Buttercup sitting in his apartment drinking, asking questions that added nothing to the story line?

Overall, it was ponderous, bloated, and boring. I love the original so much that I own multiple versions of it on Blu-Ray, whereas I will probably never watch the sequel again. It's not worth my time.

As my adieu, I give you the next-to-final scene as written by Dr. Seuss:

Look, Joe, snow. Snow, Joe, snow. The snow is slow. Joe is slow. The snow is on Joe. Woe is Joe. Joe sits in the snow. Joe is on the snow. He lays in the snow. Slow, slow, slow. The snow comes on. Joe is gone. All those moments will be lost in time, Like tears in rain.
3 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
96 Souls (2016)
2/10
Not even worth the MST3K treatment
26 September 2017
This film was horrific. The dialogue was stiff and empty, the plot was nonsensical, and it lacked even a single "Oh, cool!" moment. Even though I watched this on Netflix, I mourn the wasted bandwidth and urge you not to make the same mistake I did. My son and I tried hard to mock it a la Mystery Science Theater 3000, and even though we're pretty good at that, even our magnificent milieu of mockery was unable to find any fertile ground in this sad excuse of a film.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jason Bourne (I) (2016)
2/10
"Bourne Again" is simply awful.
6 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The Bourne trilogy were decent popcorn movies -- entertaining without being overly deep or requiring much thought. Sure, they required a minor suspension of disbelief, but nothing like this latest outing.

"Jason Bourne" takes some of the laziest screen writing and combines it with some of the sloppiest cinematography and special effects. Even Matt Damon looks like he isn't enjoying this anymore. There is no subtlety at all to the plot, even to the point where a character hacks into the CIA network and literally finds and downloads a file folder labeled "Black Operations".

In fact, for a series so obsessed with advanced technology, "JB" is remarkable for its sheer misunderstandings of technology. The writing feels like it was done by a 12-year-old who wanted to make things seem really techy without taking any time to learn about actual technology (and yes, I feel bad for insulting the 12-year-old community). In one scene, Icelandic hackers are fixated on a computer, saying "Use SQL to corrupt their databases!" Oh. My. God. That's not how that works. Sort of like hacking any security camera or cell phone that the CIA can see on the map. Or using a cell phone sitting on a table next to a laptop to erase files on that laptop. Or shutting down a power grid in seconds with a dozen keystrokes. Or... yeah, it just gets worse from there. At this point, the science in "JB" is worse than the science in "The Core", and that's saying something.

The standard Bourne car chases also went for the over-the-top optics in lieu of what actual vehicles could actually do in actual life using actual physics. A stolen SWAT armored van plows through dozens of stopped cars without even slowing down, a feat which would be beyond the reach of a semi-tractor or MRAP, while Greek police on motorcycles are not only completely stopped, but knocked backwards by fire hoses. Seriously.

This film might be worth a dollar at Redbox or free-ish on Netflix. I regret having spent $24 on it, except for the fact that doing so let me spend two hours snuggled up to a lovely young lady. Were it not for that...
3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Such a sad missed opportunity
6 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
ID:R is likely to remembered in the same vein as Highlander 2, Aliens: Resurrection, or any number of other sequels that failed to live up to their predecessors. While it showed promise in the beginning -- such as showing how humanity had incorporated the alien technology into our lives -- this promise was wasted very early on in the film. While some veteran actors returned for the film, far too many of the younger actors were obviously chosen because they were photogenic, not because they can act (which, sadly, they mostly can't). Will Smith's buoying energy was sorely missed.

The first and foremost problem with the film was the writing. A committee of five wrote the movie, and it shows in the disjointed plot and frenetic pacing of the film. The audience is raced from one plot line to another, leaving unanswered questions that are never truly resolved, hinting at character relationships that are never explored, and feeling more like watching an extended cutscene from an XBOX game rather than a feature film. Characters enter and exit too quickly for the audience to form any type of attachment, such as a station wagon full of kids who randomly weave in and out of the picture.

There is far too much reliance on cheap melodrama; this person has to watch his parents die, then that person does, then this one, until the audience really gets the point that this situation is *serious*. The overall effect was to create a shallow, one-dimensional character pool that might as well have been CGI sprites like the aliens themselves, so little did they contribute to the film. The writing committee even tried to cram in two Presidential rallying speeches instead of the first film's one. There was also the subplot of a second alien species that was nonsensical at best; at worst, it detracted from the struggle between humanity and the invaders.

The direction is the next problem area. Again, the film was marred by too much melodrama with too little substance, and the interplay between human interaction and CGI effects was not seamless, as it should be in modern cinema, but jarring. There were far too many scenes where the CGI team was obviously operating without adult supervision, resulting in overwhelming scenes of chaos and destruction that did next to nothing to advance the plot. For example, while the notion of a spaceship so large it has its own gravity field was interesting, in the end it only served as a pretext to show the Petronas Towers being dropped onto London's Tower Bridge. You know, the kind of wanton destruction usually associated with toddlers playing with sand castles at the beach.

Too many things in the film didn't make any sense. Yes, this is science fiction, but even sci-fi can feel like it follows certain logic. In ID:R, why would aircraft using anti-gravity drives need wings? Why would aliens who can drill through to the core of a planet in mere hours have to resort to an assault on foot of the NORAD bunker at Cheyenne Mountain? Why, assuming that the Presidential line of succession is similar to today's, would the President's entire Cabinet be with her at Cheyenne Mountain, such that the Presidency eventually falls to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? Was there some intricate strategy for fighting the aliens that required the President to have her Secretaries of Education, Agriculture, and Commerce at her immediate disposal? How did one character on a small boat survive a tsunami that appeared to be hundreds of feet high and destroyed massive container ships? Why, after all sorts of ordnance being lobbed at the Mother Alien's shields, did it just take one fighter pilot screaming while shooting to finally breach them? Did the other pilots just not want it bad enough? While I realize that the original ID4 had its own flaws (hacking the operating system of an alien mothership in minutes from a 486 laptop, anyone?), the longer I watched ID:R, the worse it got.

Overall, the film was a mediocre CGI fest with some actors thrown in to make it an official movie. The writing and direction were poor, the pacing was too forced, and a coherent plot was sorely lacking.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Visit (I) (2015)
4/10
Mildly entertaining, but nothing special
13 June 2016
M. Night Shyamalan continues to chase his glory days of The Sixth Sense. None of his films since have been as tight and edgy (or even made any sense -- I'm looking at you, "Signs"!), and "The Visit" continues that slow spiral.

The premise of the film is sound and the actors are all pretty good. I especially enjoyed the kids; I thought they did a great job with what they were handed in the script. But the pace was too slow and filled the time with too little of substance. Sure, there were some spooky parts, but "spooky" is the best that could be said for them. Too often, they were thrown in as a disjointed jumble and didn't effectively build on each other, giving the viewer's blood pressure time to recede to pre-spook levels. The inevitable M. Night plot twist was too little, too late; my 15 year old and I predicted it after the first 45 minutes of the film. The levels of frenetic tension and urgent sense of doom that should have carried the last third of the film never materialized.

Overall, I'd say this is a formulaic piece with too many gimmicks (like the "Blair Witch"-esque found footage) and too little editing. Alfred Hitchcock could have taken this film and had the audience wetting themselves with half the time and a third of the trite gimmicks.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed