Reviews

19 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Decent
31 August 2020
Seth shows some range, and that he isn't a one trick pony in this fish out of water tale. It covers most of the cliches, tropes, and cheese associated with this type of film, but I found the plot a little unexpected and it does a decent job of keeping it fresh, even if the finish is nothing unexpected. Far from perfect, but it knows that, and delivers what it needs to without being preachy.

I thought the lack of a love interest was an excellent editorial choice.

I wouldn't go out of my way, but if you stumble on this it is worth a watch.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
How is this still on the air?
30 December 2019
I like Will Ferrell, but not everything he does is funny to me. This was a prime example of him falling far short of funny. Yet, he was the funniest thing on the show, sad to say. This cast makes all the other casts look like comic geniuses.

I think I laughed twice during one of the skits, the whole rest of the show left me flat, even with the cavalcade of guest stars. The material is just that bad, only a few efforts to make fun of how bad the material was rose to the level of mildly amusing. They had a hard time getting the audience to laugh, mostly it was a nervous twitter at how awful things were going. And this is supposed to have been the best episode this season.

It had been a while since I'd tuned it, and I won't make that mistake (tuning in) again. Ever.

Put it out of our misery, Lorne!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Annoying and cloying
16 June 2019
The tips and recipes in this cooking show are standard fare, nothing special but far from terrible. The hostess, however, I find so phony and fake. She is incredibly annoying, couldn't stand her for even a whole episode.

If you've seen any of the commercial promos for this, you know what you are getting. If you aren't already annoyed, you might like the show, if you are even on the fence, I'd skip it in favor of just about any other cooking show.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
OMG what a trainwreck!
28 October 2018
This show is aptly named, because it is all about Alec Baldwin, not the guests (at least so far).

I'm surprised they had room for the guests since Alec's ego pretty much filled the studio. Go back to acting, Alec, at least you are mediocre at that!

If you want to watch someone with too much ego for his own good actually do a decent long form interview, go back and watch Shatner's Raw Nerve, and skip this piece of crap.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Furious 7 (2015)
3/10
are you kidding me?
5 March 2018
Watched this the other night, and I can't believe all the good reviews it is getting. I just oon't get it. I wasn't expecting a cinematic masterpiece, I knew full well going in this was going to be a car chases and explosions thrill ride sort of movie. Well, we got the car chases and explosions, but for me there was no thrill ride. I found most of the stunts visually uninspired and boring, and in spite of usually being able to turn off my brain and go with it, in this case I spent most of my time shaking my head in disbelief. This was so over the top it made old episodes of The A-Team look like a documentary. It wasn't so bad I stopped watching, but the thought did cross my mind. To all the "it is so bad, its good" folks, I usually like that sort of movie, but I don't think this one fits the bill, and since I enjoyed Crank 2 I think that says plenty enough. If you dig it, more power to you; if you haven't been following the franchise, go re-watch the Transporter or anything else for your car chases and explosions fix and give this one a pass. A certain amount of hoak and cheese can be fun, this was just too much for me, and I'm not the only one.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Star Trek: Discovery (2017–2024)
6/10
Has its flaws, but solid so far
25 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not a fan of the new Klingon look, but I'll get over it.

I'm not a rabid ST fan, but I've seen everything ST at least once, including TAS, and some of the complaints from the hardcore fans hit their mark, but other complaints seem ridiculous to me and just complaining to be complaining.

Overall, I thought the first two episodes were pretty solid, albeit with some flaws. I would have liked to be introduced to the characters a little more before they were plunged into the action, but CBS obviously wanted to hit the ground running - and leave some cliffhangers so folks would subscribe to their streaming service.

While there are more than a few clichés, some of them are necessary as the ST universe is based on them. A few others were avoided, or twisted so that they had some freshness at least.

** spoilers below **

The Flaws:

I found the captain a little wooden and annoying, so I was actually glad when she got killed.

The Vulcans aren't played as well as they could be, the new Sarek has too much emotion in his face and demeanor at times.

Some of the camera work is overdone and distracts from the action.

The stilted Klingon speech patterns are awkward.

If this devolves into just a fight with the Klingons... :(

The Solid:

Some great potential characters (if they are developed).

Solid tragic hero with flaws as protagonist, with a mostly credible acting performance by Martin-Green (a little stilted in a couple scenes, hoping she loosens up with time).

Great potential for intellectual development, not just action, if they decide to realize it. Jury is still out on that front.

All in all, I give it a 6 out of 10, which is pretty solid for a pilot, many series take a while to get their wings.

Unfortunately the series seems doomed by CBS's ploy to only offer it via their streaming service. Hope they change tactics...
3 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
black comedy that won't please everyone
20 February 2017
This is one of those movies that you'll either love or hate.

I loved it.

The opening scene had me thinking that it was too over-the-top, and I wasn't going to like it, but I just kept laughing. Out loud.

Being from New Mexico, some of the jokes at the expense of the ABQ PD had extra spice.

Black comedy isn't for everyone. If you don't like the dark side, you aren't going to enjoy this one. I can understand the reviews from those who like their comedy dark but just didn't connect with this one, too. Different strokes and all. It is wacky, crazy, and out there, not just black.

I found the chemistry between the two buddy cops great, there are some truly wonderful lines amongst their banter.

If you can get over the "silly factor" involved with being so over-the-top, I think you'll enjoy the ride, otherwise you'll be one of those that "HATED IT".
59 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Caved In (2006 TV Movie)
3/10
One for the Worst lists...
7 March 2012
If you like bad movies for the camp value, you might enjoy this steaming pile, otherwise step carefully around it and keep moving.

I laughed my butt off.

So many glaring errors and "it doesn't work that way"s, I can't imagine the writers did much other than drink and scribble on cocktail napkins.

A favorite was the endless pump action shotgun that never ran out of ammo. A "queen" beetle has to rank up there, too. And the 1980's had better CGI.

This movie could be re-made entirely from clips of other underground/giant insect movies, from the rickety swinging rope bridge to the hang from ledge edge and have your hands stepped on by the bad guy. They really covered every cliché possible from the genre, more to fill time than as any sort of "homage".

I couldn't spoil the ending if I wanted to. You already know it. You'll know every move the movie makes on the way there, too, including all the terrible telegraphed one liners, and the attempt to distract the audience from that knowing - with odd blaster guns and graphic violence - only highlights the fact that there isn't an original moment of the 90 minutes you'll regret having spent watching this.

Stay away, unless you like to laugh at the absurd.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Desert Steel (1994 Video)
2/10
Just plain bad, and not in a good way
18 April 2011
It is hard to say exactly why this movie is so bad. A typical sports oriented cliché plot and storyline doesn't help, but by itself wouldn't sink a movie. The acting is bad, but I've seen much worse. The sets and action scenes aren't great, and again I've seen worse. I guess it is just the total mix of all the bad elements. There really isn't anything here to redeem the package, and it isn't bad enough to make for good camp fun. I like a lot of movies other people think are bad, and not just the campy stuff, but this one couldn't win me over - which is saying something.

Oh, one more thing -- (comic book guy mode on) WORST... FOLEY... EVER! (comic book guy mode off)

Spare yourself, and skip this one. Really.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's Good to Be Alive (1974 TV Movie)
7/10
Serious, solid drama
1 April 2011
We get a front row seat to serious trials and tribulations as Roy Campanella, Major League Baseball's first black catcher, struggles to rehab from a car accident that left him paralyzed below the shoulders. We get some flashback moments to show how Roy got to where he did, but the focus is on his life after the accident, dealing with his own agonies and those of his family as they all try to cope, sometimes well, often times not.

There are some trite/cliché moments in the movie (including a scene very reminiscent of the Lou Gehrig farewell speech), but even those hold up well due to the quality of the acting, and the realism of the direction (Kudos to Michael Landon in his directorial debut!).

Solid acting performances by all the players, and a realism (I'd like to use the word "gritty" even though it isn't quite right, but neither is any other adjective I can think of) that hit me right in the gut.

I think even those who don't like sports movies in general, but who appreciate a good real life drama, would enjoy this mostly "lost" TV movie. I'd never even heard of this before I saw it the other night, and it deserves a wider audience strictly on its merits, and even more so as an important piece of history many probably don't know about.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shatner's Raw Nerve (2008–2011)
10/10
Raw Nerve is that and more!
15 February 2011
Wow.

OK, a celebrity interview series with William Shatner hosting. The joke almost writes itself, doesn't it? No! Heck No! There is no doubt that in many regards the iconic Shatner winds up being a comedy/self parody element rather than a "serious" talent. This interview series shattered that perception for me.

If you want something in depth, that really gets to the essence of what has made a celebrity what they are today, a real honest glimpse of what makes them tick, instead of the plug for recently made material and a couple of gratuitous cliché "funny moments", this is the series you want to watch - forget the late night talkies. No BS! The first of these I saw, I thought it had to be a fluke. Luck. No one gets a celebrity to expose themselves this way! After I'd seen three or four more, and each interview reached that same level of intimacy, I knew this wasn't luck. This was indeed talent. Maybe it is the crew behind the scenes doing the magic, but Shatner is putting the face on it, and he is not just pulling it off, but performing absolute magic.

Wow.

If you've been avoiding this only because of the camp factor involved with things William Shatner, do yourself a big favor, put that aside, and watch two episodes. You won't regret it. Heck, you'll be hooked.

If you can point to a better celebrity interview series, please email me directly, because that is something I want to see! I _have_ to see the rest of these, even if the interviews I haven't seen yet are only shadows of the couple episodes I've seen.

10 out of 10. Kudos, Shatner!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Uncivilized (1937)
5/10
Not great but not bad - wonderful aboriginal dancing!
22 December 2010
This 1930's Australian adventure flick has all the typical clichés found in movies of the period, including some obvious nods to "The Sheik", and the writers had to have seen a Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan movie or two... ("Homage" not "Rip Off", right?)

The story is a bit slow at parts, and telegraphs most of its punches well in advance, but there is one nice plot twist, and the slow story advancement isn't overly off-putting in such a short work, especially when some very nicely done travelogue style cinematography fills the gaps. Worth watching at least once, if only for the awesome native dances done by the aboriginal cast!

Download it from Archive.org, the price is right...
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Xiao lao hu (1973)
4/10
Not a great kung fu movie, but far from the worst
22 November 2009
I got this movie as part of a three pack, with the other two titles being Snake Crane Secret (which is on at least half of the compilation kung fu DVD's), and Breathing Fire (which as one reviewer here said is "Crap-tastic!"). Bargain Bin.

The blurb on the DVD box incorrectly states Jackie Chan is the taxi driver/hero of the movie. He actually plays one of the thugs, with a bad mole on his face, and is only a supporting actor - which means less screen time, and less of him in the fight sequences. Too bad.

Some of the fights are good, but most are only average for a kung fu flick: better than the Phillipino stuff, but not by much, and definitely not up to the Chinese Movie Village standard. The car chase scenes are almost bad enough to be funny. Almost.

I have to agree with the other comment, for an action movie this is quite slowly paced, and seemed like much longer than 90 minutes.

I wouldn't avoid seeing it, but I'd avoid paying money for it unless you are a Jackie Chan complete-ist - and be ready for Chan to take a back seat, not center stage.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst. Movie. Ever.
20 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I love bad movies. You know the phrase "so bad it's good", well in this case it isn't. It is just plain bad.

I couldn't finish watching it bad.

I didn't have any clue that the Japanese scenes were supposed to be 16th century until I read it elsewhere. The casting is terrible. The costumes suck. The "effects" are horrid, worst fake blood I've seen in quite some time. The acting is bad, but not bad enough to have camp value. Worst fight choreography I've seen anywhere. No continuity between many of the scenes, they just jump to what they want to show next without any tie-in to plot or previous action. Even the T&A, which would have been this flicks only redeeming virtue, was done poorly.

Worst. Movie. Ever.

I think this would be a fine candidate for the 100 worst movies, except it will probably never get enough votes to make the list - which is a good thing, because it will mean many folks never saw it and were spared intense suffering.

the loco
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Harvey (1996 TV Movie)
5/10
Not great, but not bad either
12 December 2006
A remake of a classic film isn't usually the best place to start from, but I was pleasantly surprised that this one wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. I can't say it is great, but I did enjoy it. Harry Anderson seemed to be trying a little too hard at times, but I could understand why with such a great performance in the original by Jimmy Stewart. His Elwood grew on me as the movie progressed. (Incidentally, Mr. Stewart wasn't happy with his performance, and wished he had done a better job putting more into the character, from what I've read).

Not great, but not horrible. I'd watch the original over this is a heartbeat, but I wouldn't change the channel if this version were to re-air. I gave it a 5 out of 10.

OB Loco
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Far Out Man (1990)
8/10
Not up to Cheech & Chong originals, but funny anyways
10 September 2004
I liked this movie. It has some lame moments, but then I think all of the C&C, except for Up In Smoke (an absolute classic), have a few of those. I'd rate this better than Still Smokin' and definitely a step above The Corsican Brothers (which I really didn't care for).

Cheech & Chong had a hard time of it thru the 80's, with the Drug Wars in full swing, and were basically blackballed from Hollywood. Cheech caved in, and went "straight" to keep working (since he is the son of a cop, I can't blame him too much). Tommy never gave up, and suffered for it. This movie was an attempt to make a little money, and I think the main reason the family fills out the cast is because they would work cheap. The few others (C. Thomas Howell, Michael Winslow, Judd Nelson) are in this film mostly as favors, including the cameo by Cheech. Don't take this as gospel, it is just what I've heard thru the grapevine. I also heard they almost didn't get this film published, the "heat" was still on.

The plot is thin, but so is the plot in every other C&C movie. Cheesy at times, it still has some great lines and a few laugh out loud moments. Oscar material it ain't, but as a silly stoner movie it isn't half bad. If you are looking for Northern Lights, the commercial Mex quality will disappoint. Don't expect too much, and you'll probably enjoy it.

Pull up a dick and have a seat.

All units, we have a report of a crazy mutha-fuka with a gun... a crazy mutha-fuka with a gun.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
worst of the c&c movies, only hardcore fans need apply
10 September 2004
This one is a dud. I wouldn't call it the worst movie ever made, but the jokes and running gags are pretty lame. A couple of moments buried in the midst, and they really aren't worth digging for.

I would pass on this one, and watch Far Out Man or Born In East LA instead in a heartbeat, neither of which are classics, but they are far better than this steaming monkey pile.

They went for "straight" comedy to fight a Hollywood blackballing in the middle of the Reagan-era drug war hype, and their humor obviously suffers for it. Cheech decided to cave in, Chong did not, and that is the reason for their split more than anything else.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thirteen (2003)
5/10
Superb acting, realistic dialogue, just didn't like it
29 June 2004
It is hard to say why I didn't like this film, but I really did not care for it.

I was ready for most of the "shocks" dealt out, so that wasn't it.

The acting was excellent, the dialogue quite believable, the situations and storyline were on the money.

It just came out like one of those recipes where you like all of the ingredients, but when mixed together you don't care for the result.

It wasn't that the recipe was bad, it was made to order exactly as it was supposed to be. Sure peer pressure is an overdone cliché, but that hasn't prevented many movies from pursuing the topic and doing well with it. It wasn't the cliché that bothered me.

Going for the shock value has been overdone as well, but again I don't think it was revisiting a familiar tactic that bothered me - and I wasn't all that shocked (and it wasn't that the movie failed to shock when it was trying that bothered me, either).

I usually like even bad movies, at least for their "camp" value, but I came away from this one wondering why I wasted my time watching it. How a movie can have some of the best dramatic acting I've seen, great gritty realistic dialogue, hard realism, direction and cinematography that didn't detract from the story (I won't nominate these aspects for any awards, but they were better than average), and still manage to come together as a whole and leave me flat, I don't know. I felt the angst, I remembered some of my youthful pains, the subject matter is relevant, the characters well done and made me believe in them as people, and I just didn't give a damn.

I really can't explain. I have to give the movie a 5 out of 10, as it deserves better than a blackball because the acting was quite good and the storyline was very real (I've known people that could have been some of the characters in this movie), but I really just did not care for it.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This one sucks, and not because it is "disturbing"...
27 May 2003
I've seen a lot of horror and gore flicks, many that my friends couldn't handle or thought were too intense, so I consider myself fairly jaded and ready for just about anything on screen - bring it on!

After reading many comments on _Cannibal Holocaust_, I expected to at least be mildly affected by this film, in spite of my jaded "iron gut" status. This film didn't do a thing for me or to me, it completely failed to have any major or minor impact on me.

If you've read about the film, you already know all the major components, and the items that got under the skin of most of those watching. Didn't faze me one iota! Either I'm as messed up in the head as my friends think I am, or this flick suffers too many major problems, or both.

Some will probably say I just didn't "get it", but I think I did. There are potentials for a great film here, but it falls far short. The underlying moral theme of western decadence being more savage than "primitive" tribal culture could have been a good hook, and saves the film from being a total failure. The documentary style helps some as well, lending some realism and an excuse for some of the poorly done effects (I have a very hard time believing there really was an obscenity trial for the director, in regards to the authorities believing anyone really got killed in this film).

The most often quoted "disturbing" parts, being the actual killing of animals, just didn't bother me much. The only one I had any feelings about at all was the muskrat, as it was killed in a slow and painful manner, and I'm not a fan of animal torture. But, as it was a rodent, I had a hard time getting worked up about it - I just thought the folks who would do such a thing for fun/profit were assholes. I felt worse for their lack of regard than I did for the actual animal suffering and death. The other animal killings were all relatively quick events, mostly involving beheading (which is quick and effective for the most part) and while a turtle flopping its legs around after it is dead and being cut up might freak some people out, with its head cut off it is already dead and the movements are reflex only. I've had shark filets that were still quivering from nervous action when I put them in the skillet, and I know darn well the shark wasn't feeling a thing by then!

Aside from the gore of butchering the animals, the effects are not well done, even for a 1979 film, IMNSHO. I also found the pace of the film, and the amount of gory/horror content to be lacking in a big way. I was mostly bored, not grossed out, horrified, or "disturbed". I've seen older non-grossout style flicks have much better effects than most of the blurry/disjointed action that makes up most of the gore scenes in this film. A few obligatory gut and entrail/exposed brain moments, and most of the rest is at least semi-implied, rather than explicitly detailed. The focus goes away, the event happens, the focus comes back some for the "result". About the only effect I thought was reasonably well done was the castration. I wasn't looking for _Day of the Dead_ spill your entrails on the floor in graphic detail, but when watching a scene of primitive natives beating someone to death with rocks and sticks, I would expect the blows to at least look like they come close to landing on the victim! The rapes seemed thrown in, perhaps as an afterthought, for extra shock value, and the way they were thrown in made them seem even more unreal and fake than the way they were acted.

I could have tolerated the very poor acting, the disjointed underexplained setup, the animal cruelty, the slower disjointed pace, if there was anything more to this film, but I just didn't find anything more. I've seen much better gore on a low budget from the same time frame (_Evil Dead_ was shot within a year or two of this "piece", wasn't it?), and I've seen better attempts at the "realism" style over the "buckets of blood" gore style. I've also been more "disturbed" by non-gore movies because of plot, storyline, or clever gimic. Shame, too, as I think the moral theme, and (later stolen by Blair Witch?) finding the victims footage after their demise premise were great hooks, and could have made for a much better final product.

At least _Blood Sucking Freaks_ made me laugh...

If you are a serious fan of the genre, you'll probably have to watch this one and judge it for yourself. However, I would advise a rental, or borrowing it from a friend if possible, as I would have been quite disappointed if I had paid full price for the DVD.

I rate it a 3 out of 10, as it had great potential but failed to come even close to meeting it.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed