I get what the other reviewer is saying here about "too many plot devices" but that only really bothers me now that I sit and think about it. The movie itself moved along quick. Good story, good acting. Just a fun way to waste an hour and a half. Don't think about it too much and you'll enjoy it just fine.
Reviews
33 Reviews
Makes Indy Stupid
3 February 2019
This movie really sullies the entire Indian Jones franchise for me. From the beginning with the ultra-idiotic "hide-in-a-fridge-to-survive-a-nuclear-explosion" scene and downhill from there. A whole lot of head-scratching stupidity. Hopefully they make at least one more to help Indy rebound from the mess that was Crystal Skull.
Death-Scort Service
(2015)
Terrible On All Counts
30 March 2017
This movie is terrible on all counts with really zero positive things going for it. I am wracking my brain to think of one good thing to say to justify even a rating of one out of ten -- which is the lowest rating I'm allowed to give since IMDb will not allow me to give a grade of zero, which I now know because I just tried to give that grade to this film and it won't let me. Unfortunately I am coming up completely empty. So please just know that even though I am giving this a one out of ten officially, what I really give it is a zero out of ten. Maybe negative one.
-- The effects are total garbage
-- The acting is worse than garbage
-- The directing.... wait was there even a director on set for the taping of this crap?
-- The writing is even worse than the other stuff put together, could they have maybe even tried to come up with even a small script or some plot?
This movie is complete garbage. I thought based on the title it might be a little funny or fun but no such luck, it's just total garbage.
-- The effects are total garbage
-- The acting is worse than garbage
-- The directing.... wait was there even a director on set for the taping of this crap?
-- The writing is even worse than the other stuff put together, could they have maybe even tried to come up with even a small script or some plot?
This movie is complete garbage. I thought based on the title it might be a little funny or fun but no such luck, it's just total garbage.
The Ambushers
(1967)
Third and Third Best
23 March 2017
This is a serviceable western comedy film. It's the third movie in the Helm series of movies and I remember watching them as a child. I loved the first one but the next two had a pretty big drop off in quality, especially this movie, which is not just third chronologically but third in quality.
Dean Martin is funny like always but the movie just seems cheaper. The love interest is very good but the story is by the numbers and just more of the same. Particularly cheap looking are shots with a green screen effect (back in those days they actually just screened a film behind them) which looks just tacky and awful.
The gadgets aren't as fun either, it's like they ran out of the good ideas in the first two films. Still it's fun with some great gags and we didn't get bored watching it so I give it a 6. Probably a tad generous.
Dean Martin is funny like always but the movie just seems cheaper. The love interest is very good but the story is by the numbers and just more of the same. Particularly cheap looking are shots with a green screen effect (back in those days they actually just screened a film behind them) which looks just tacky and awful.
The gadgets aren't as fun either, it's like they ran out of the good ideas in the first two films. Still it's fun with some great gags and we didn't get bored watching it so I give it a 6. Probably a tad generous.
Logan
(2017)
Quite Good! Very Entertaining.
23 March 2017
Let me start off by first pointing out (or admitting?) that I am not a big fan of so called "comic book movies" at all. I always seem to be the man in the theater who has no idea what the in jokes are that the "real fans" are laughing at, or who the characters are, or what their back story is, or even anything about the "universe" the story is taking place in.
So I judge all the movies having known nothing going into them. What I liked about the X-Men series of films is that it didn't get too deeply into another universe and explained things (rather simply) so that someone like me could get up to speed. I've seen (I think) the entire film series to date and have enjoyed all but one of those films.
Logan is perhaps the best of them though. As a stand alone movie it's very good and I think anyone who has not seen the earlier films may be a little lost at first but it's easy to follow and to get into the characters and world. The action is great and I like that, unlike the other films, it goes a little darker.
The effects are masterful and as always I'm a big fan of Hugh Jackman. Patrick Stewart is also very good, as usual.
I'd recommend this film for anyone. It's not the best film ever but if you're a fan of big action but also like a good story to go along with it, you can't do much better than Logan.
So I judge all the movies having known nothing going into them. What I liked about the X-Men series of films is that it didn't get too deeply into another universe and explained things (rather simply) so that someone like me could get up to speed. I've seen (I think) the entire film series to date and have enjoyed all but one of those films.
Logan is perhaps the best of them though. As a stand alone movie it's very good and I think anyone who has not seen the earlier films may be a little lost at first but it's easy to follow and to get into the characters and world. The action is great and I like that, unlike the other films, it goes a little darker.
The effects are masterful and as always I'm a big fan of Hugh Jackman. Patrick Stewart is also very good, as usual.
I'd recommend this film for anyone. It's not the best film ever but if you're a fan of big action but also like a good story to go along with it, you can't do much better than Logan.
The Beaverton
(2016– )
At least it's better than "Second Jen"
2 March 2017
I really don't think I'll ever understand Canadian television networks... who runs them and what in the world are they thinking on any given day?
This country already has a lot of news comedy shows, these are shows that are all about making fun of the news and news broadcasts, but these shows all have jokes that are geared for the older set. Why they think they need This Hour Has 22 Minutes and also The Rick Mercer Report and also for a long time Royal Canadian Air Farce, is beyond me. Even when the Air Farce show for grandparents was finally put out of its misery they replaced it with still very news based comedy by the equally ancient Ron James Show. There were other news based comedy shows whose named I can't recall right now. Double Exposure, The Grind, uh...... more? Plus for I guess... reasons???... Royal Canadian Air Farce is still on the air at least once a year with their even more atrocious than they ever were before New Years Eve Specials, which I am 100% certain are written by a 90 year old man who has a stack of newspapers from 1987 and joke books from 1955. In case you haven't guessed these taxpayer funded non-comedies make me angry. I don't like paying for dreck that isn't funny and that is only meant for other old people.
So I was very optimistic about this show. I thought I'd seen all of them but according to this list there are 13 episodes, I have seen about 6 or 8. I thought finally, a show with jokes for people under 50 on Canadian T.V., finally a news comedy show in Canada like the Daily Show or Colbert Report or any of the others they do so well, with serious content and real actually funny jokes.
But no. My hopes were smashed like a ship against the rocks. Sure the show is younger but the jokes are just as bad. Even worse than that The Beaverton show is full of production errors. Including probably the worst laugh track that has ever been used in any show ever. The exact same sound of the same people exploding into laughter for no reason and then also without reason all immediately silenced, as if the entire laughing audience was all simultaneously hit over the head with a hammer.... which would actually be more fun to watch than this show.
The show has bad sound, bad lighting, cheap sets and bad acting. Forget acting, these people can't even deliver jokes well. Then again it's probably hard to deliver jokes this bad without vomiting anyway.
I follow The Beaverton magazine online. That Beaverton is like a Canadian version of The Onion and they actually have some funny and good articles. The difference between that and this box punch of a show was such a canyon that I assumed the comedy network just bought the rights to use the name and none of the same people were involved. Apparently that's not the case. So I have to wonder, why are people who are obviously funny writers such awful writers when it comes to writing for TV? Whose fault is this awful television show?
There! My first review was "don't watch, this is one of the worst shows on T.V." but apparently I needed ten more lines. I spent 17 minutes writing this review slamming a T.V. show begging you not to watch it for the sake of your own IQ and eyes.... which should make it clear how bad I think this show is.
At the end of the day I give this show 2 out of 10 because at least it's better than "Second Jen" which is so breathtakingly bad it makes me want to put a hand grenade in my mouth then pull the pin... which would be more fun to watch than that show. Even if I was holding a dozen puppies when I exploded. Whoever made the show "Second Jen" should be thrown into a mine shaft and then have the mine shaft filled with dog excrement, but first also burn and throw in all the tapes and scripts of "Second Jen".
This country already has a lot of news comedy shows, these are shows that are all about making fun of the news and news broadcasts, but these shows all have jokes that are geared for the older set. Why they think they need This Hour Has 22 Minutes and also The Rick Mercer Report and also for a long time Royal Canadian Air Farce, is beyond me. Even when the Air Farce show for grandparents was finally put out of its misery they replaced it with still very news based comedy by the equally ancient Ron James Show. There were other news based comedy shows whose named I can't recall right now. Double Exposure, The Grind, uh...... more? Plus for I guess... reasons???... Royal Canadian Air Farce is still on the air at least once a year with their even more atrocious than they ever were before New Years Eve Specials, which I am 100% certain are written by a 90 year old man who has a stack of newspapers from 1987 and joke books from 1955. In case you haven't guessed these taxpayer funded non-comedies make me angry. I don't like paying for dreck that isn't funny and that is only meant for other old people.
So I was very optimistic about this show. I thought I'd seen all of them but according to this list there are 13 episodes, I have seen about 6 or 8. I thought finally, a show with jokes for people under 50 on Canadian T.V., finally a news comedy show in Canada like the Daily Show or Colbert Report or any of the others they do so well, with serious content and real actually funny jokes.
But no. My hopes were smashed like a ship against the rocks. Sure the show is younger but the jokes are just as bad. Even worse than that The Beaverton show is full of production errors. Including probably the worst laugh track that has ever been used in any show ever. The exact same sound of the same people exploding into laughter for no reason and then also without reason all immediately silenced, as if the entire laughing audience was all simultaneously hit over the head with a hammer.... which would actually be more fun to watch than this show.
The show has bad sound, bad lighting, cheap sets and bad acting. Forget acting, these people can't even deliver jokes well. Then again it's probably hard to deliver jokes this bad without vomiting anyway.
I follow The Beaverton magazine online. That Beaverton is like a Canadian version of The Onion and they actually have some funny and good articles. The difference between that and this box punch of a show was such a canyon that I assumed the comedy network just bought the rights to use the name and none of the same people were involved. Apparently that's not the case. So I have to wonder, why are people who are obviously funny writers such awful writers when it comes to writing for TV? Whose fault is this awful television show?
There! My first review was "don't watch, this is one of the worst shows on T.V." but apparently I needed ten more lines. I spent 17 minutes writing this review slamming a T.V. show begging you not to watch it for the sake of your own IQ and eyes.... which should make it clear how bad I think this show is.
At the end of the day I give this show 2 out of 10 because at least it's better than "Second Jen" which is so breathtakingly bad it makes me want to put a hand grenade in my mouth then pull the pin... which would be more fun to watch than that show. Even if I was holding a dozen puppies when I exploded. Whoever made the show "Second Jen" should be thrown into a mine shaft and then have the mine shaft filled with dog excrement, but first also burn and throw in all the tapes and scripts of "Second Jen".
Baroness Von Sketch Show
(2016–2021)
Bad
28 February 2017
This show is just plain bad. The writing is awful with bad sketches where you can tell every joke that's going to happen before it actually does. Just because this show is apparently, based on the ads and word of mouth, supposed to be for "moms" doesn't mean it has to be lame and unfunny. Are moms supposed to be lame and unfunny? I know a lot of moms who are very funny. Maybe they should have been given a show instead of these people.
This is the kind of show where the ladies say "whoopsy daisy!" then roll their eyes and I guess we're all supposed to laugh because them rolling their eyes is just so freaking funny. But if that's a skit on this show they'll have to roll their eyes like thirty thousand more times because these skits just go on and on and on, covering the exact same joke that wasn't funny the first time, beating it into the ground like a red headed step child.
A couple of the cast are OK as performers but the writing is so awful it is impossible to get past and they're also dragged down by truly terrible acting on the other hand. They don't all have pics up here on IMDb (big surprise) but even though Meredith (I think) is pretty good one of the ones with no pic is just so awful and desperate to try to get a laugh from her awful delivery that she sucks even the idea of any funny coming from this show right out of the room.
Avoid this show as another Canadian comedy failure up (or down) there with the worst of all time. But it doesn't quite sink to the horrible depths of Second Jen which was so bad it literally made me turn off my TV and leave my home.
This is the kind of show where the ladies say "whoopsy daisy!" then roll their eyes and I guess we're all supposed to laugh because them rolling their eyes is just so freaking funny. But if that's a skit on this show they'll have to roll their eyes like thirty thousand more times because these skits just go on and on and on, covering the exact same joke that wasn't funny the first time, beating it into the ground like a red headed step child.
A couple of the cast are OK as performers but the writing is so awful it is impossible to get past and they're also dragged down by truly terrible acting on the other hand. They don't all have pics up here on IMDb (big surprise) but even though Meredith (I think) is pretty good one of the ones with no pic is just so awful and desperate to try to get a laugh from her awful delivery that she sucks even the idea of any funny coming from this show right out of the room.
Avoid this show as another Canadian comedy failure up (or down) there with the worst of all time. But it doesn't quite sink to the horrible depths of Second Jen which was so bad it literally made me turn off my TV and leave my home.
Second Jen
(2016– )
Does Not Even Qualify as a TV Show...
28 February 2017
Second Jen is just atrocious. It's awful. It's a train wreck. This show is terribly, horribly, unbelievably, horrifyingly bad. I would need a thesaurus to even begin to describe just how mind-bogglingly bad Second Jen is.
Worst acting ever? Check.
Worst writing ever? Check.
Jokes that are so not funny that we literally wondered if they even qualified as jokes at all? Check.
A show so ineptly conceived and put together that we weren't sure until the end credits if they had even bothered to hire a director or producers? Check.
This show has literally nothing to offer. Since moving to Canada, I would say this show is easily in contention for the worst comedy series I have ever seen. The fact that I can think of two or three other shows that are even in the same conversation as shows that are as bad as this one should alarm Canada's television industry, because Second Jen is so inexcusably awful - every part of this show is so poorly thought out and executed - that I am mystified as to how it was ever produced let alone broadcast on a major television network.
Worst acting ever? Check.
Worst writing ever? Check.
Jokes that are so not funny that we literally wondered if they even qualified as jokes at all? Check.
A show so ineptly conceived and put together that we weren't sure until the end credits if they had even bothered to hire a director or producers? Check.
This show has literally nothing to offer. Since moving to Canada, I would say this show is easily in contention for the worst comedy series I have ever seen. The fact that I can think of two or three other shows that are even in the same conversation as shows that are as bad as this one should alarm Canada's television industry, because Second Jen is so inexcusably awful - every part of this show is so poorly thought out and executed - that I am mystified as to how it was ever produced let alone broadcast on a major television network.
Workin' Moms
(2017–2023)
2/10 - Terrible Show
27 February 2017
This show is almost complete garbage in my opinion. "Workin' Moms" just fails to work on almost every level. I give it a generous 2 out of 10 and I would go all the way and give it a 1 out of 10 and say it is total garbage unless that other show "Second Jen" (or is it maybe "2nd Jen"?) existed, which is somehow a hundred times worse than "Workin' Moms".
Anyway the writing is stupid, pathetic, unfunny, predictable... the kind of level of comedy writing one may expect from a middle school acting team making up sketches at lunch hour in the cafeteria, nothing approaching professional at all, nor even "somewhat funny." It's just all garbage.
Too frequently they rely on sexist and racist stereotypes, and even then the jokes aren't just archaic and unfunny they just plain don't work, are unoriginal, and you know exactly where the joke is going long before it gets there.
The acting is also just plain awful, and not just the "Workin' Moms" themselves. It's like the casting director was directed to find the worst possible people to build a show around. Even the supporting characters are just annoying to watch.
Oh yeah, Baroness Von Sketch is also terrible (but better than this swill)... what is wrong with CBC and why can't they make one decent comedy show?
Anyway the writing is stupid, pathetic, unfunny, predictable... the kind of level of comedy writing one may expect from a middle school acting team making up sketches at lunch hour in the cafeteria, nothing approaching professional at all, nor even "somewhat funny." It's just all garbage.
Too frequently they rely on sexist and racist stereotypes, and even then the jokes aren't just archaic and unfunny they just plain don't work, are unoriginal, and you know exactly where the joke is going long before it gets there.
The acting is also just plain awful, and not just the "Workin' Moms" themselves. It's like the casting director was directed to find the worst possible people to build a show around. Even the supporting characters are just annoying to watch.
Oh yeah, Baroness Von Sketch is also terrible (but better than this swill)... what is wrong with CBC and why can't they make one decent comedy show?
Kill Ratio
(2016)
One of the Flat-Out Stupidest Action Movies I've Ever Seen...
23 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The last word that comes to mind while watching this movie is "intelligent" since nothing about the movie - and most especially nothing about the actions of any of the characters in this movie - make any sense at all.
First of all, the acting is bad, and the lead actor is just plain brutal. He belongs in local dinner theatre in some hick town in Iowa, not the movies. He's tall and has muscles though which is enough to get him cast in this dreck.
There are literally too many problems to count. Virtually every action the lead (a highly trained covert operative CIA agent type with a license to kill) takes, and every other character too for that matter, is just plain idiotic.
It sounds like it's "so bad it's funny" but really it's not even good for that. If you want to laugh at a bad action film check out any of the newer Seagal movies, "Kill Ratio" is just plain awful.
First of all, the acting is bad, and the lead actor is just plain brutal. He belongs in local dinner theatre in some hick town in Iowa, not the movies. He's tall and has muscles though which is enough to get him cast in this dreck.
There are literally too many problems to count. Virtually every action the lead (a highly trained covert operative CIA agent type with a license to kill) takes, and every other character too for that matter, is just plain idiotic.
- They have phones but can't just call for help? Or call the media? - The deposed president and the evil general and his soldiers all speak... English? Even to each other? And when she addresses her country? Why??? - He won't shoot the bad guy in his room because the noise will attract more bad guys, so he fights him... but then tries to shoot him like 10 seconds later anyway? - He kills a soldier in his room, chases the bad guy down the hall and dives head first down the laundry chute after him - they basically crawl out of the chute at the bottom (pretty sure laundry chutes go straight down and they'd be injured/dead), continue to fight, he knocks the bad guy out and then... just leaves him tied up on the laundry room floor? So any of his men will find and free him (which happens), even though based on the body there he knows bad guys come in there? He already killed the other bad guy, why not kill this guy too? So stupid. - The girl he slept with then literally threw out of his room, dumping her stuff on the floor, is killed (predictably) and he can't even bother to close her eyes? He just leaves her dumped in the laundry basket and puts dirty laundry back in her face? Unintentionally hilarious - but still just plain stupid. This "hero" is a huge knob. "I'm sorry." No. No you're not, knob. - Apparently the decorative medieval swords coat of arms in the hotel lobby is... actual, sharpened swords that anyone can pull out at any time and fight with? Really? - The general kills the bellhop in a sword fight (that alone is stupid) to prove a point or something, but miraculously the guy's head has not really been cut off, there is zero blood on him, the general or the floor, and none even on the sword? - When people are shot the CGI blood is just ridiculously bad. Like, made with whatever free editing software comes with a Mac bad. - I guess the first boring sword fight was so great they decided they had to have another one, but when he gives the general the sword why doesn't he just stab/kill the president since she is still the only person standing in his way? - The president goes on live TV (again - if she only needs to prove she's alive couldn't she have used one of the THREE phones they had to just call a radio/TV/newspaper and be done with it?) and says "hey I'm alive and the general is taking over the country" then the hotel workers all say "hey she's alive, so you soldiers aren't soldiers you're CRIMINALS!" and then pick up brooms and mops and arrest the soldiers. Laugh out loud stupid. First, they already know the soldiers are criminals, they're wearing masks and holding them hostage and killing their friends (one beheaded with a sword for no reason)... second, why do the soldiers just say "ok, we give up, come take our guns" instead of just shooting them, when they've already killed and raped other people? Complete nonsense. - When the bad guys are conducting a floor to floor search, why put the dead body is a laundry cart and try to move and hide it? Just dump it down the chute or put it in a random room or toss it out the window or just MOVE TO A DIFFERENT ROOM. - The title "Kill Ratio" doesn't even make sense... he has an "unlimited kill ratio?" Really? What does that even mean? Is it supposed to be like an unlimited kill LIMIT, because that would at least make logical sense. Also, he doesn't really even kill that many guys. - There's about a million more things but I'm tired of thinking about this awful film.
It sounds like it's "so bad it's funny" but really it's not even good for that. If you want to laugh at a bad action film check out any of the newer Seagal movies, "Kill Ratio" is just plain awful.
Reversion
(2015)
Good Mystery/Thriller
22 February 2017
This is a good mystery/thriller. The other reviewer hits the nail on the thread I think, in her entire review but also in calling this a mystery/thriller rather than a sci-fi film (which is where I found it on Netflix).
It does have sci-fi elements and is built on the idea of a sci-fi technology which uses smartphone apps connected to brain implants to recall and heighten chosen memories from one's past, but it's more about the mystery.
She's also correct about the pacing of the film. It's very slow and deliberately paced. This is a mystery that uses tension and is all about how we handle our own memories and fears, and how we handle finding out we don't remember things the way they actually happened sometimes. "Be careful what you wish for."
Colm Feore is an incredible actor and Amanda Plummer knocks it out of the park in her brief supporting role. The lead actress is fine and her friend/driver/bodyguard (who I'm certain I've seen in something else?) does a very good job in his role. The role of the mysterious brain-chipped, desperate young lady was also handled quite well.
I'm surprised this movie only has 44 ratings here. Maybe it was just recently added to Netflix but it's from two years ago (2015) and is quite good for what it is - just don't expect it to be your traditional "sci-fi" flick.
It does have sci-fi elements and is built on the idea of a sci-fi technology which uses smartphone apps connected to brain implants to recall and heighten chosen memories from one's past, but it's more about the mystery.
She's also correct about the pacing of the film. It's very slow and deliberately paced. This is a mystery that uses tension and is all about how we handle our own memories and fears, and how we handle finding out we don't remember things the way they actually happened sometimes. "Be careful what you wish for."
Colm Feore is an incredible actor and Amanda Plummer knocks it out of the park in her brief supporting role. The lead actress is fine and her friend/driver/bodyguard (who I'm certain I've seen in something else?) does a very good job in his role. The role of the mysterious brain-chipped, desperate young lady was also handled quite well.
I'm surprised this movie only has 44 ratings here. Maybe it was just recently added to Netflix but it's from two years ago (2015) and is quite good for what it is - just don't expect it to be your traditional "sci-fi" flick.
Stargate: Atlantis
(2004–2009)
Good Show Ruined by One Terrible Actor
22 February 2017
I'm a big fan of Stargate and really liked the premise of this show - that Atlantis was actually not a lost continent but a lost planet far from Earth where our ancestors are from.
An exploratory group of U.N. scientists and civilian-types go through along with military units whose job is to keep the place secure and the scientists safe. This of course leads to some head butting between the military's leader and the head of the civilians/scientists over who is in charge of the mission at any given time. It's supposed to be her but the military takes over sometimes when they are under threat, and the threat is always there that the guys with the guns could take over at any time, which some of them want to do.
The effects on the show are good, with an interesting enemy and decent writing.
The real failing of the show was the casting. I just couldn't make myself keep watching since the show was confined to a very limited number of characters and I couldn't stand one of them.
Hewlett and Higginson are both very good, in this and in other shows/films I have seen. Flannigan I find just OK but he is good enough. The one character I couldn't stand watching at all was Rainbow Sun Francks, his acting was just 100% terrible, it's as if he only got his job by being the producer's son or something, but I checked and he actually had done some acting before, which surprises me.
Unfortunately when a show has such a small cast just one character can be enough to ruin it and that is what happened here. Too bad.
An exploratory group of U.N. scientists and civilian-types go through along with military units whose job is to keep the place secure and the scientists safe. This of course leads to some head butting between the military's leader and the head of the civilians/scientists over who is in charge of the mission at any given time. It's supposed to be her but the military takes over sometimes when they are under threat, and the threat is always there that the guys with the guns could take over at any time, which some of them want to do.
The effects on the show are good, with an interesting enemy and decent writing.
The real failing of the show was the casting. I just couldn't make myself keep watching since the show was confined to a very limited number of characters and I couldn't stand one of them.
Hewlett and Higginson are both very good, in this and in other shows/films I have seen. Flannigan I find just OK but he is good enough. The one character I couldn't stand watching at all was Rainbow Sun Francks, his acting was just 100% terrible, it's as if he only got his job by being the producer's son or something, but I checked and he actually had done some acting before, which surprises me.
Unfortunately when a show has such a small cast just one character can be enough to ruin it and that is what happened here. Too bad.
That Loveable Bug
(2003 Video)
Cute Documentary
16 February 2017
As a big fan of all of the old Herbie the Love Bug movies from Walt Disney pictures, this was a really nice walk down memory lane that touches on all of these movies as well as the various TV programs and a lot of interesting behind the scenes stories concerning the project about an anthropomorphic Volkswagen Beetle, which is actually one of the very last projects that Walt Disney himself worked on before he passed away.
The documentary passes by quickly and kept all our interest, in fact I really wish it had been a little bit longer. It features interviews with a lot of the great cast members, guest stars (such as the late great Buddy Hackett) and also info from producers and crew from behind the scenes.
I would have loved to see more about the technical end of both the series of films and Herbie the car it/himself, but as I said this is a very short documentary so they obviously didn't have time for everything.
Worth seeing for Herbie fans, an interesting watch and completely family friendly.
The documentary passes by quickly and kept all our interest, in fact I really wish it had been a little bit longer. It features interviews with a lot of the great cast members, guest stars (such as the late great Buddy Hackett) and also info from producers and crew from behind the scenes.
I would have loved to see more about the technical end of both the series of films and Herbie the car it/himself, but as I said this is a very short documentary so they obviously didn't have time for everything.
Worth seeing for Herbie fans, an interesting watch and completely family friendly.
Stephen Colbert's Live Election Night Democracy's Series Finale: Who's Going to Clean Up This Sh*t?
(2016 TV Special)
Good Job, But Not a Good Show
14 February 2017
This was a long special of Stephen Colbert's, basically a Late Night with Stephen Colbert special episode (airing instead of his usual late night show).
It started okay but came off of the rails very quickly as more and more states came in for Donald Trump. You could tell that Colbert (who is openly pro-Hillary and liberal-leaning) was not comfortable or impressed, and he got more upset and put off as the night went on. You can also say the same for his disappointed audience, who are likewise left-leaning and anti-Trump.
He stayed in the game and basically took it on the chin but this was not a funny show, not a fun show to watch, and really was kind of a train wreck. Colbert probably said it best himself -- "Stephen Colbert called this special the hardest show he ever had to do. About two hours of material relating to Hillary Clinton's expected victory, including made-up commercials, were cut once it was clear that Clinton was most likely going to lose. Unable to go to commercial or use the made-up commercials, Colbert had to do the whole live show for an openly sobbing "audience of the condemned," as he said."
It started okay but came off of the rails very quickly as more and more states came in for Donald Trump. You could tell that Colbert (who is openly pro-Hillary and liberal-leaning) was not comfortable or impressed, and he got more upset and put off as the night went on. You can also say the same for his disappointed audience, who are likewise left-leaning and anti-Trump.
He stayed in the game and basically took it on the chin but this was not a funny show, not a fun show to watch, and really was kind of a train wreck. Colbert probably said it best himself -- "Stephen Colbert called this special the hardest show he ever had to do. About two hours of material relating to Hillary Clinton's expected victory, including made-up commercials, were cut once it was clear that Clinton was most likely going to lose. Unable to go to commercial or use the made-up commercials, Colbert had to do the whole live show for an openly sobbing "audience of the condemned," as he said."
Duel
(1971 TV Movie)
Underrated
14 February 2017
This TV movie does not have a ton to offer if you're looking for a big budget blowout, or something with tons of action and a lot of characters with arguments, fights and big speeches. This just isn't that film.
This might be my favourite Spielberg movie because (like he did with his first big hit film Jaws when the shark just didn't work) he uses those limitations to his advantage. Instead of fighting and action he uses tension, basically for almost the entire movie. We are along for the ride with a regular commuter who is driving his car, and who unfortunately kind-of sort-of cuts off a truck driver who really does not appreciate it.
For the rest of the film, the faceless, nameless trucker chases and harasses him, ultimately trying to kill him in their highway game of cat and mouse.
The ending is great, though pretty predictable, and a lot of the scenery is really neat too.
This might be my favourite Spielberg movie because (like he did with his first big hit film Jaws when the shark just didn't work) he uses those limitations to his advantage. Instead of fighting and action he uses tension, basically for almost the entire movie. We are along for the ride with a regular commuter who is driving his car, and who unfortunately kind-of sort-of cuts off a truck driver who really does not appreciate it.
For the rest of the film, the faceless, nameless trucker chases and harasses him, ultimately trying to kill him in their highway game of cat and mouse.
The ending is great, though pretty predictable, and a lot of the scenery is really neat too.
Interesting Short
14 February 2017
This is a short - at fifteen minutes it's actually very short - behind the scenes look at how the classic Charles M. Schulz animated special "A Charlie Brown Christmas," his first real special based on his legendary Peanuts comic strip, came to be made.
There are a couple of interviews with Schulz's associates included in the short which provide much of the details, context and commentary for the short.
I had no idea how important Coca Cola was (as the short film's sponsors) to the project coming to fruition, and other behind the scenes details and trivia were pretty neat to learn as well. Kids will love it to, and at such a short run time they'll actually be able to sit through it :)
There are a couple of interviews with Schulz's associates included in the short which provide much of the details, context and commentary for the short.
I had no idea how important Coca Cola was (as the short film's sponsors) to the project coming to fruition, and other behind the scenes details and trivia were pretty neat to learn as well. Kids will love it to, and at such a short run time they'll actually be able to sit through it :)
Be My Valentine, Charlie Brown
(1975 TV Short)
Happy Valentine's Day, Charlie!
14 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I really enjoyed this Charlie Brown animated holiday special and wish that they would broadcast it more often. I have an old VHS tape of it that we transferred to a DVD some time ago and we try to watch it most Valentine's Days.
It's actually kind of sad for a Valentine's Day special, which is actually part of its appeal to me. Every other special has the love interests get together in the end and everyone's happy. Not so in this show.
MILD SPOILERS AHEAD: ... Charlie Brown never does get a Valentine's card, Linus tells Lucy he'll never marry her and Schroeder fails to give his box of chocolates to the teacher he has a crush on. It's heartbreak all around.
But that's what Charles Schulz brought to life without getting too serious or sad - things don't always work out for us but things are always OK in the end - even for a lovable sad sack 'loser' like Charlie Brown :)
It's actually kind of sad for a Valentine's Day special, which is actually part of its appeal to me. Every other special has the love interests get together in the end and everyone's happy. Not so in this show.
MILD SPOILERS AHEAD: ... Charlie Brown never does get a Valentine's card, Linus tells Lucy he'll never marry her and Schroeder fails to give his box of chocolates to the teacher he has a crush on. It's heartbreak all around.
But that's what Charles Schulz brought to life without getting too serious or sad - things don't always work out for us but things are always OK in the end - even for a lovable sad sack 'loser' like Charlie Brown :)
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
(2015– )
I'm Giving Colbert a Generous 5/10... and Want to Give it More
14 February 2017
First, what's good about this show:
Now, the problems: - The writing is garbage! The jokes fall flat or are re-treads of stuff we've all heard before. Repetitive fluff. The kind of stuff that is the opposite of what Colbert used to do on The Colbert Report. - Colbert has seemingly been neutered. In this new show he never goes after anyone, the biting social commentary, irony and sarcasm are almost extinct. - Jean Batiste is terrible as a sidekick. He has nothing to offer and when he does have something to say it's not funny or even something that Colbert can use to make funny. - Colbert is too political. He turns off half of his audience every night by propping up Hillary Clinton and only attacking one side of any political issue (most of the time).
All that said, this show is still as good as most other talk shows and in time maybe it and Colbert will find their feet. Colbert himself is much more interesting to watch that that grinning bum- kisser Jimmy Fallon or full-of-himself Jimmy Kimmel or simply boring-and-unfunny Seth Meyers and what's-his-name who does the car karaoke on the Late, Late Show? The only host who can beat Colbert in my opinion is Conan, and that has a lot to do with that show's superior writing, and vastly superior sidekick (Andy Richter is amazing, Batiste is basically an unfunny prop).
I think it might also be better if they had more stand-up comedy guests.
I doubt this show will ever be as good as Letterman in his prime but the pieces are there (or could be easily replaced) so I'm not giving up on this show yet. Hopefully the network won't either because the ratings aren't that great from what I have read.
- Stephen Colbert is still Stephen Colbert, he can helm a great interview and still be hilarious. - The show has some great guests, not always celebrities who are shoving their latest projects down our throats but actual personalities with something important to talk about, agree with them or not. - The band is decent (at least the music).
Now, the problems: - The writing is garbage! The jokes fall flat or are re-treads of stuff we've all heard before. Repetitive fluff. The kind of stuff that is the opposite of what Colbert used to do on The Colbert Report. - Colbert has seemingly been neutered. In this new show he never goes after anyone, the biting social commentary, irony and sarcasm are almost extinct. - Jean Batiste is terrible as a sidekick. He has nothing to offer and when he does have something to say it's not funny or even something that Colbert can use to make funny. - Colbert is too political. He turns off half of his audience every night by propping up Hillary Clinton and only attacking one side of any political issue (most of the time).
All that said, this show is still as good as most other talk shows and in time maybe it and Colbert will find their feet. Colbert himself is much more interesting to watch that that grinning bum- kisser Jimmy Fallon or full-of-himself Jimmy Kimmel or simply boring-and-unfunny Seth Meyers and what's-his-name who does the car karaoke on the Late, Late Show? The only host who can beat Colbert in my opinion is Conan, and that has a lot to do with that show's superior writing, and vastly superior sidekick (Andy Richter is amazing, Batiste is basically an unfunny prop).
I think it might also be better if they had more stand-up comedy guests.
I doubt this show will ever be as good as Letterman in his prime but the pieces are there (or could be easily replaced) so I'm not giving up on this show yet. Hopefully the network won't either because the ratings aren't that great from what I have read.
Good Ol' Documentary
14 February 2017
I think of this documentary the way I think of the Peanuts cartoon specials and comic strips - it's consistently good but not often great. This documentary apparently had access to all of Charles Schulz's personal materials, as well as the wealth of specials and publications out there, so they've definitely put together an impressive documentary where you will learn a lot about the world of Charles Schulz. The documentary definitely focuses a lot on interviews of his associates and childhood friends, which is interesting but I think lingers on a bit too long. I would rather the documentary had delved a bit more into Schulz's home life, work habits and just "what made him tick."
I also would have loved to see more of his personal work, as I'm sure he had unfinished and unpublished material - as well as some more non- Peanuts related stuff?
I also would have loved to see more of his personal work, as I'm sure he had unfinished and unpublished material - as well as some more non- Peanuts related stuff?
Cheers
(1982–1993)
Classic Comedy
13 February 2017
Cheers is a pitch perfect sitcom that is the one I best remember from the 1980s, and stands up in my opinion as one of the greatest comedy television series of all time. It really is hard to believe in retrospect that it finished dead last in the ratings in its first season before being given a death row reprieve by some network execs who must have had great vision and enormous faith in this series, and becoming the perpetual juggernaut it was.
The casting is amazing, which is evidenced by the fact that a record number of stars and guests received Emmy nominations (17) for this series, until ER eventually broke the record 20 years later. I know I still fondly think of the great characters on this show. Norm, Cliff, Sam, Rebecca, Woody, the lovably dopey Coach, Fraser, Diane, Lilith, Carla. Even the great guest stars who came and went. I loved all of them. Even the hated Gary from their rival tavern was perfectly cast. This show holds up well because of these great characters, who I still quote.
I also still quote it because of the writing, which holds up to this day. It's a 1980s style sitcom (very much setting up a joke, telling the punchline, over and over again) but the writing and acting are just stupendous.
Check it out if you haven't.
The casting is amazing, which is evidenced by the fact that a record number of stars and guests received Emmy nominations (17) for this series, until ER eventually broke the record 20 years later. I know I still fondly think of the great characters on this show. Norm, Cliff, Sam, Rebecca, Woody, the lovably dopey Coach, Fraser, Diane, Lilith, Carla. Even the great guest stars who came and went. I loved all of them. Even the hated Gary from their rival tavern was perfectly cast. This show holds up well because of these great characters, who I still quote.
I also still quote it because of the writing, which holds up to this day. It's a 1980s style sitcom (very much setting up a joke, telling the punchline, over and over again) but the writing and acting are just stupendous.
Check it out if you haven't.
Still Standing
(2015– )
Really?
12 February 2017
I don't know what the CBC's fascination with east coaster "comedians" over the years, and even worse the just generally bad "dad jokes" that are common in their comedy programs, but it takes me a lot of effort just to get through most of their programs like this. Maybe other people (and by that I think I mean older people) watching CBC really love this kind of show and have been demanding it for years and years, but I just can't stand it.
We've already been stuck with (and paying for, through tax dollars, as the CBC is a publicly funded institution) Royal Canadian Air Farce, about 25 years of This Hour Has 22 Minutes, The Ron James Show... the list goes on and on... Do we really need more jokes about donuts, and how cold it can get here, and how we like to drink beer, and how the Toronto Maple Leafs haven't won a championship in years and years and years?
Please give it a rest and give us something new, CBC, because this show is not funny at all. It is just retreads of the same jokes we've all heard a million times before.
We've already been stuck with (and paying for, through tax dollars, as the CBC is a publicly funded institution) Royal Canadian Air Farce, about 25 years of This Hour Has 22 Minutes, The Ron James Show... the list goes on and on... Do we really need more jokes about donuts, and how cold it can get here, and how we like to drink beer, and how the Toronto Maple Leafs haven't won a championship in years and years and years?
Please give it a rest and give us something new, CBC, because this show is not funny at all. It is just retreads of the same jokes we've all heard a million times before.
Scandal
(2012–2018)
Worthless Television
11 February 2017
This show seems like it was written by or for children or overly- emotional halfwits. The writing has all the depth and nuance of a ridiculous dime store romance novel. Nothing that happens in this show is based in reality, no character is either real or likable, and none of their reactions are in any way realistic. Every single character seems like they have the emotional age of an impetuous tween.
The show is devoid of any real life feelings or characters, and the worst part is the writing. The dialogue is all completely ridiculous. Characters constantly launch into tirades, at least 2 or 3 every single episode. Why would anyone want to watch grown people throw tantrums constantly? Plus all of the characters talk the same -- what really grates on me though is how all of them constantly repeat themselves. "I will not do that! That is something I will not do! You will not make me do that and that will not be done by me!" That's pretty much exactly the way they talk.
Olivia Pope is completely unlikable and Kerry Washington is a truly terrible actress whose performance rings about as true as Ashton Kutcher would in the same role: as Olivia Pope.
I can't stand a single thing about this show.
The show is devoid of any real life feelings or characters, and the worst part is the writing. The dialogue is all completely ridiculous. Characters constantly launch into tirades, at least 2 or 3 every single episode. Why would anyone want to watch grown people throw tantrums constantly? Plus all of the characters talk the same -- what really grates on me though is how all of them constantly repeat themselves. "I will not do that! That is something I will not do! You will not make me do that and that will not be done by me!" That's pretty much exactly the way they talk.
Olivia Pope is completely unlikable and Kerry Washington is a truly terrible actress whose performance rings about as true as Ashton Kutcher would in the same role: as Olivia Pope.
I can't stand a single thing about this show.
Lacks That Magic
11 February 2017
In my opinion this show isn't as bad as a lot of the reviewers here seem to be making it out to be, but compared to the original Office series I do find it to be at least somewhat of a disappointment. I guess that is to be expected though, as the original series was so good it must be hard to duplicate that success again, especially so many years later.
Ricky Gervais is back as David Brent who now is working as a rep instead of a boss at an office, selling women's hygiene products (which I found to be a rather cheap joke). But he still obviously has his head in the clouds.
I'm not sure it was a good choice to focus the entire special on David's attempt to become a rock star by hiring a band and crew to go on tour with him. The show does have its moments but just lacks that magic it and the character used to have. Also I should point out that this program is definitely tilting more towards the sadness of Brent's life than comedy. I just felt bad for him without laughing or even just feeling that patented "Office awkwardness" most of the time.
Ricky Gervais is back as David Brent who now is working as a rep instead of a boss at an office, selling women's hygiene products (which I found to be a rather cheap joke). But he still obviously has his head in the clouds.
I'm not sure it was a good choice to focus the entire special on David's attempt to become a rock star by hiring a band and crew to go on tour with him. The show does have its moments but just lacks that magic it and the character used to have. Also I should point out that this program is definitely tilting more towards the sadness of Brent's life than comedy. I just felt bad for him without laughing or even just feeling that patented "Office awkwardness" most of the time.
The Girl on the Train
(2016)
Can be Confusing -- The Original Movie is Better
11 February 2017
The Girl on the Train is the story of Rachel Watson's life post- divorce. This is an American remake of what I think is a really classic thriller, that doesn't quite hold up to the original (then again remakes seldom do).
Every day Rachel takes the train in to work in New York City, and every day the train passes by the house she used to live in with her ex-husband, who still lives there with his new wife and child, and being reminded of them daily obviously gives her a lot of pain.
She also becomes infatuated with the couple who live a few houses down. She thinks their life must be perfect and is happy for them until one day she sees (or thinks she sees?) something horrifying happen there, blacks out and wakes up badly beaten with no memory of what happened to her. Plus she finds out that Megan Hipwell is missing.
Now she has to find out what happened to Megan -- and herself -- in those lost hours.
The movie is good and worth seeing but for a better movie experience check out the original!
Every day Rachel takes the train in to work in New York City, and every day the train passes by the house she used to live in with her ex-husband, who still lives there with his new wife and child, and being reminded of them daily obviously gives her a lot of pain.
She also becomes infatuated with the couple who live a few houses down. She thinks their life must be perfect and is happy for them until one day she sees (or thinks she sees?) something horrifying happen there, blacks out and wakes up badly beaten with no memory of what happened to her. Plus she finds out that Megan Hipwell is missing.
Now she has to find out what happened to Megan -- and herself -- in those lost hours.
The movie is good and worth seeing but for a better movie experience check out the original!
The Good Old Boys
(1995 TV Movie)
Good Directorial Debut
11 February 2017
I didn't even realize until after we had watched it (I guess I had somehow missed it in the beginning credits?) and came online here to review it that this TV movie was actually directed by Tommy Lee Jones, who is also the main lead in this. He did a very good job as an actor and a director both for this film, especially considering he had to do both at once.
It is a western drama about a cowboy who is rugged and wants to be free but also has the pull of "civilization" and family, who are making him more domesticated.
It's a good if predictable story and the acting make it definitely worth seeing, with a fantastic cast all around. Sam Shepard is great, as is Jones.
It is a western drama about a cowboy who is rugged and wants to be free but also has the pull of "civilization" and family, who are making him more domesticated.
It's a good if predictable story and the acting make it definitely worth seeing, with a fantastic cast all around. Sam Shepard is great, as is Jones.
Tell Your Friends