Change Your Image
OneAnjel
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Hunted (2015)
Eight for Intrigue with caveats
I found the Australian version on Prime and got hooked. I then searched to see if there were other versions. Sure enough there's a UK version (and nowhere to leave a review for the Aussie version), there also seems to be a US version but I could only find one episode which I opted not to watch - what can you get out of one episode?
I thought the Australian version was extremely intriguing and it's presented in such a way that 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 in my personal opinion, there seems to be a lot of chubby unkempt women in this position. I'm a woman myself so please don't think I'm picking on the females, I'm just more confident when I see someone who is in good physical shape and has personal discipline, which you can tell by one's appearance.
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, clapping, giving high fives, which becomes very annoying. Also one of the differences in the Australian is the hunters seem to be required to wear black outfits with logos and drive black cars. Which would help give 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 have no way of knowing how many reviews are from UK or if there's a mix on this and other platforms but 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 then 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.
Now 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. Once you've blocked them, then you only know that final time that they try to withdraw money and after that you're on your own. So that puzzles me despite all my armchair expertise. Why would you close down a bank account with barely 200 pounds in it. I mean they're not millionaires who could potentially access enough money to disappear forever in another country 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 only way to know that they're required to contact someone at least once is to, apparently, go to the Hunter's website and look at the rules.
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. But again we have to go back to say, Well they're required to contact at least one friend or family during their escape.
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.
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 so that it does end up making the contestants look foolish instead of having an idea of what they're up against. But I just figure 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. Hopefully I won't get too many thumbs down just for my honesty.
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.
Your Honor (2020)
Engaging but stereotypical, & disappointing
I'm really on the fence about how to review this show. After seeing the ending, I did a little search to see if the original Israeli version, Kvodo, was just as sloppy and insulting. Many are saying Kvodo was more tidy due to the fact Your Honor was expecting to pull this out into a longer series while Kvodo had a beginning, middle, and ending. They also mention having to alter the story to conform to the US legal system. I read that Kvodo was so popular that 5 other countries are doing their own versions. I find that hard to believe after watching this train wreck.
Many reviews claim the son is a terrible character but I would suggest watching with an eye for what the film is telling you. Doohan does an excellent job portraying Adam, a deeply emoted and vulnerable teen who needs to make sense of the world he finds himself in while inadvertently wreaking havoc.
The worst character is Gina Baxter and I'm not absolutely sure it's all the fault of the character. I mean, try to imagine Jennifer Connelly or Rachel Weisz in that role and you can start to see how daring and perverse the character is supposed to be. But Hope Davis was so boring. Her mouth was constantly agape and she appeared more mentally challenged than menacing. Her side view looks like a Adam's Family comedy character from a sketch book. They had Davis in monotone drab colors with colorless makeup and long straggly hair. Someone so malicious, manipulative and wealthy would have put some effort into her appearance. Gina was not just your average antagonist; she was truly detestable. Her appearance in a scene gives you palpable disgust.
I initially thought Lilli Kay was a poor choice for the role of Baxter's daughter - with the long shapeless physique and masculine face. But in S2 they soften her up a lot and the sense that it's a male playing the part is forgotten. She turns out to be a pretty good actress here but Fia's final act in the series is completely unbelievable. We are shown this young woman who seems to take to motherhood easily, who is the only Baxter with a moral compass and yet she would not exhaust every option to try and keep her child? Complete bull. Way out of character and thoughtlessly contrived.
Now, I admit, the series seemed fairly well-acted and there was a handful of seasoned players. But the emotion was so tamped down it was frustrating at times - probably for the actors, too. While the series punches us in the face with what should be shocking developments, I felt I was watching people just going through the motions. It seemed the director intentionally dialed it back to, theoretically perhaps, make it more hard hitting - like a jalapeno that at first seems tame. For me, that backfired. Especially when you consider what made Breaking Bad a cult classic was the over the top emotion in the characters' expressions, it seemed strange to see Cranston holding back - almost gliding, like a ghost through his parts; like a wallflower at a prom. He's almost unrecognizable compared to the characters he exploded onto the screen in Malcolm in the Middle and Breaking Bad.
My biggest disappointment is that Your Honor is so stereotypical in the design of the characters and circumstances that it borders on (insert any number of offensive descriptive adjectives). In S1, we are presented with a typical media narrative of the haves and the have nots, essentially. While dramatized for your enjoyment, much of the circumstances are based in real life - cops on the take; gangs sacrificing members; judges throwing convictions; gangs taking revenge on each other. In Your Honor we are faced with the corruption every liberal loves to whine about - corruption in the police; corruption in courts; corruption in white collar jobs; oppression and desperation in black ghettos; and unrelenting fear imposed by Russian mobs.
Season 1 turned out to be watchable and entertaining. Season 2 took 4 episodes to get started and then ended by flipping through a ViewMaster with hints in photos, pausing just for a moment before the wheel spins to the next entry. Clearly, the producers did hope for a third season but season 2 probably lost a lot of viewers.
The Hustle (2019)
Got boring fast & ending was too unrealistic
I'm checking out comedies on YouTube and this looked interesting. Like a lot of people pointed out, it's a rip off of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels but not nearly as entertaining. Scoundrels is from a time when production companies were falling over each other trying to get Steve Martin on their payroll. Melanie aka Rebel is not nearly in such demand. I don't like nor dislike Jane Hathaway but the name makes me think of only one person - the banker's assistant on Beverly Hillbillies.
I haven't seen Scoundrels for years but I do know Martin's character does not kiss anyone at the end. This was added by some fat-is-beautiful liberal to pad the fabricated narrative that it's ok to be morbidly obese and expect healthy attractive people to desire you for "who you are." One's physique is the fruit of who a person is. Accepting people who are out of shape is different from changing the narrative. We need to be kind and understanding but obesity is a serious medical condition, not a lifestyle choice or orientation.
I actually saw Rebel one other time and turned the film off within 10 minutes. This time there was not the over use of foul language and trailer park wit, but the film just wasn't that entertaining. It actually got boring. Jane wasn't able to pull off the stoic intellect of her predecessor and Rebel may as well have been playing a different role, she is so far away from being the comedic genius of Steve Martin. Anyone would have been better in that part, even Brooke Elliot. But more specifically, it would have been better with someone like Megan Mullally, Amy Poehler or Ali Wong. This was just someone trying to find a slot to fit Rebel in and it just didn't work.
There were some clever scenes but few laughs.
The Wedding Invitation (2017)
Fun chick flick with great friendship focus
This film is a lot of fun if your a female. If you're a guy or a prude, you might feel it's over-acted and immature. We laugh at films like Road Trip, Wedding Crashers, and Dumb & Dumber but put females in similar over the top roles and we get a bunch of negative reviews that are so out of touch with this film they bother to leave 1 or 2 stars, indicating strong knee jerk reactions.
I actually found this on Youtube Movies where over 110 comments are all mainly positive. People compare it to Friends & Sex in the City. I'm not familiar with those but the humor is in line with films like Miss Congeniality or Legally Blond.
The actors here are not big stars but they did a great job. The dialog is perfect for what the film is trying to accomplish and they all did outstanding at delivering lines in what could be called Modern Schlapschtick with a romantic theme. The strong female friendship is a good theme and is realistic.
It's definitly a chick flick, guys will not understand this film. The drama is not realistic but ladies will get the humor. On the other hand, guys might think this is some secret lens into how women really act.
I enjoyed it.
The 1% Club (2024)
Fun but too easy and poorly presented plus the marketing 🙄
I'm one of those people who loves brainiac type shows. So of course I thought this was going to be a really great show. The first thing that disappointed me was that they start out way up at a question 90% of the people surveyed got correct and very slowly dwindle down to 1%. I do have a high IQ but I thought these were relatively easy questions. But the majority aren't really questions about intelligence, rather about perception or ability to perceive the twist; riddles. For example one of the questions is: These two states South Dakota and North Carolina can form two completely new state names, what are they? I thought it was very obvious but yet several people got that wrong.
In E2, two questions had more than one way to reach the answer. IE, they say to look at the round numbers to find an equation; they were speaking of the digits that have circles, which is so anti-intelligent you really have to hope for the best in answering because there no rhyme or reason - most people would think they meant the numbers ending in 0. But ironically, if that's the route you chose, you would still get the correct answer.
It should have been more fun than it was. I thought the host was okay but I'm not a fan - I don't really care for hosts who think that teasing is funny or entertaining (and I prefer nice voices). E2 inproves a bit but in E1 it almost becomes an interview of the lady with one kidney. With 100 contestants, we see only a handful and hear from even fewer with the host picking favorites to - well - pick on. I'll also just mention that in episode 3, I felt the guy who was sponsored by The Gates Foundation was a marketing spot. Bill Gates has really become a hated figure after forcing his vaccine on the world and is obviously a paid attempt to soften people's opinions of him. Since his name is on the 2015 covid patent along with Clinton's, we can be pretty sure he's known for a while that there would need to be a vaccine for what we now know to be a relatively benign common cold cousin.
Part of the difficulty is the short amount of time given to reach an answer. But E2 was even easier than E1 almost by leaps and bounds.
But for those saying the 1% question on E1 was unfairly presented, I'm afraid that is just showing that you didn't qualify. The directions that it was a word is literally in the term "password"; while popular to call every digital key that unlocks something a password, a key that uses numbers, acronyms, or symbols is technically a passCODE. But thank you for solving my question of why that was so difficult for our finalists. You would probably hate the film Exam (2009).
I'll continue to watch this as it becomes available, I know the British version is very popular. However I do hope there are more challenging questions to come - but that aspect does make it fun for the whole family. Another example is, basically, in the English alphabet which picture represents the 23rd letter. Several people got that wrong. Of course, initially you do have to figure out that it's discussing the English alphabet. Some reviews mention it's designed to make everyone feel smart. Maybe that's all there is to it but I think a lot of people would disagree.
But the fact is, anyone can get stumped by age old verbal tricks or riddles like "A plane crashed in the desert; where did they bury the survivors", or "If y e s spells yes, what does e y e s spell". Trust me, these do stump many people. This show may be just a series of this type of riddle.
In many of the questions, solving is more easily done by eliminating the wrong answer such as turning the + sign 45 degrees. Only 2 answers had the plus in the 45 degree angle and of those, only one had the 2nd symbol turned almost 90° to the left.
I was one of the people who was initially stumped by the 1% question in episode 3, and yet looking back it was quite obvious.
As I said I'm not fond of the host (never heard of him before) but I don't hate him either. Hopefully they're just on a learning curve right now. If he's a comedian, then I agree he should be allowed to adlib. Might make it more interesting.
The Librarians (2014)
Uplifting Charmed meets LXG
This is a very uplifting, fun fantasy series. The basis isn't necessarily new - many shows have a team of gifted people solving crimes, mysteries & puzzles. But this most reminds me of great films that were before their time: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and The Time Machine, adding some of the youthful whimsy of Charmed and Harry Potter.
I have to mention that I didn't know this series existed until I did a search for one of my favorite tv characters: Elliot Spencer (Christian Kane). This makes me think that streaming platforms attempting to show me what interests me get too stuck on one genre while ignoring others. In the old days, we would see all ads at some point eventually. But I never saw one ad for this clever show.
Even though Wyle is one of the more well known names, Flynn is actually not the best character. I'm not sure if it's the way the character was written or the way it was played. He would have been more believable with a slightly disheveled appearance. But the writers try to give each charcter a viable backstory with interesting quirks or gifts. One could say another more seasoned group of actors could have pulled this off better yet it's engaging and charming nonetheless.
Larroquette is great as Jenkins, and Kane is enjoyable although Leverage is still his best vehicle. I'm disappointed that Math Girl is so criticized by reviewers yet that is true in real life, as well: average people disliking the smart kid. But I did think they are remiss in not having at least one regular black character - which would have actually made more sense for Ezekiel.
Some episodes are better than others but it follows the tradition of wrapping up each episode with minimal cliffhangers.
A great carefree family-friendly show that tweens and up can enjoy. Maybe even younger but it does have upsetting gouls and situations.
Exam (2009)
Perfect way to get the right candidate - but most reviews missed it even after having it revealed to them.
I read a handful of reviews, both recent and past, and I feel like the low star reviews totally missed the point of the exam. Some were downright angry that it was such a simple sort of trick. The high star reviews didn't seem to really grasp it, either, though; however they enjoyed the stress and chaos. Or maybe they just didn't verbally dissect it the way I'm about to.
Someone said the film has been done number times. I would wholeheartedly disagree - unless they're talking about just being in one location needing to figure a way out, which doesn't count, if you ask me.
But one might wonder if it isn't the very film watched by the inventors of a certain pandemic virus in recent years - imagine them clanking Champaign flutes, laughing and chatting about how they will become billionaires off the backs of the easily persuaded social media world 60% of us live in when they rush in with their anti venom, as it were. But I'll leave that to the history books.
The film itself was decently acted for a low budget film - the characters all managed to get across the point of their persona and the setting was perfect for the play. I do think this might be the film that erroneously offered the idea that a sociopath is actually a narcissist; White was a sociopath and narcissist is not interchangeable with the term. I can understand the confusion because both demonstrate huge egos and ability to manipulate, however a narcissist is not a cold blooded killer.
For those who are puzzled or think it was poorly researched or simplistic amid the grand pretense, I'll explain: When you have a room full of geniuses and need to find out who they are at their core, the thing most of them lack is the ability to keep a perspective of the common things, the little stuff. These over-educated high IQ applicants were being evaluated to see if they could still take into consideration how the common mind works; what common people think or say without rushing to a conclusion that their intellect is the only solution. When the Instructor said "Listen carefully because there will be no repetition", most of the room thought they were too smart to need to listen carefully. But some of us heard the question right away: "Are there any questions?" I noticed right away that this was a question normally heard in high school or blue collar training arenas, not in high IQ situations where the candidate would be expected to speak up if they had a question or, more commonly, to figure it out after having been told the rules already.
The answer was not about whether the room asked additional questions at the point, but if anyone of them had thought it was and wrote "No," they would have been correct. The question was about whether there were any questions on the sheet, which a kindergartner would have quickly pointed out, there were not. These mental giants were too full of themselves to see the forest for the trees. There was no trick, just a super simple direction injected into a room of people who thought they were taking an exam based on their IQ and expertise.
The film did try to confuse us with the odd Frenchman and the overly knowledgeable scientist -- which one was the plant? But a true genius would have understood there was a plant in the room who had the answer. The Frenchman had the answer, even leaving his glasses behind to give someone a chance to discover their usefulness.
Overall, I enjoyed the film but wouldn't watch it again. I liked the point it made and that aspect has created an almost cultish following of the film not represented in the low stars on this platform.
Skyfall (2012)
Get Smart in the Temple of Doom
I remember the Bond films from when I was a young girl. They weren't really my cup of tea back then but my brother, 2 years older than me, always wanted to see the newest Bond film and he had to drag me with him so my mother could have some me time. I remember that James Bond was untouchable, he had no problems that lasted more than 5 minutes. In Skyfall, this new character they're trying to pass off as James Bond gets into all kinds of trouble, doesn't get along with people, gets shot and falls off a train all in the first 10 minutes of the film. I would like to paraphrase something that I found in one of the reviews that perfectly fits what I'm thinking:
The main problem with all the recent Bond films is the writers tried to make the movies realistic, which is in antithesis to classic Bond. The real Bond drives cars that double as submarines, never gets shot, is never dirty, unshaven or sweating. He is a superhero, not a common mortal.
That really sums up how I feel about the character in Skyfall, not to mention that for me he just doesn't embody the James Bond Persona and presentation. Bond is sexy, well-dressed, good looking.
I did like the music and I thought the videography was great. But honestly in that first action sequence I really felt like I was watching a 1960s amateur action film. As a woman, I also don't care for the sudden surge of older confused looking females substituting for the alpha male arrogance of a true mastermind on the last several years.
I would have liked to have seen more from the Bond girl and again I go back to the original action scene where one mirror on the vehicle gets knocked off and then the other one and there's some ridiculous quip about it. I honestly just felt like this has got to be the most simple-minded poorly put together elementary dialogue that could possibly be found in a James Bond film. I just don't understand all the high accolades.
Skyfall doesn't really remind me of a James Bond film at all. It feels a little bit more like Maxwell Smart trying to find his way around the Temple of Doom.