mraiche1980 Reviews

Lucky Hank (2023)

If you don't like this show, then it's not meant for you.

[8/10 · 12 April 2023]

I am tired of reading all the bad reviews here by people who hate this show because it's not what they expected or it's not what they want it to be. No, it isn't another "Better Call Saul." It's a different show!

This show has good writing. The comedy is subtle. The story is getting more complicated as the series progresses. It's not "Better Call Saul," it's not "Nobody," and it's definitely not "Mr. Show." It is a very different role for Bob Odenkirk and, personally, I think he's nailing it. That said, it's not for everybody. It's not exciting or gripping. You have to pay attention to understand what is going on.

Give it a try, but read the premise first. Don't watch it expecting "Better Call Saul." If you don't find the premise interesting, it's probably not for you. If you do watch it and dislike it, then stop watching it. You don't need to come on here, give it one star and rant about how much you hate it because it's not exactly what you want it to be.

Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities: The Outside (2022) Season 1, Episode 4

Everyone is different

[3/10 · 26 January 2023]

I like Kate Micucci and Martin Starr, so I was sorely disappointed by this episode. It didn't seem to have a direction or a moral. This episode made no sense to me.

What was the writer trying to say? At the end, I was just confused. I'm trying not to spoil anything in case anyone wants to watch this episode. To me, it was confusing and it didn't make sense.

Some people liked it and that's ok, but I didn't see the point. It was well-made and the acting was good, but I found the story to be severely lacking. When it was over I didn't understand what the writer was trying to tell me. Maybe you'll like it, but it wasn't for me.

Los Espookys (2018–2022)

Whom is this show meant for?

[4/10 · 24 October 2022]

If this show were in English, I would give it a higher rating. I really want to enjoy this show. I like the premise. The problem is that my Spanish isn't good enough to enjoy the dialogue without the subtitles and I can't enjoy the show with subtitles. I want to watch the show, not read the bottom of the screen the entire time.

Personally, I don't like this show, but I would probably like it if it were in English. I'm not surprised that it failed. The premise was too ambitious. What made the creators think that an American audience would like reading subtitles while watching a comedy?

I enjoy reading and when I want to read, I read a book. I don't watch TV when I want to read.

It's not a bad show. It's very creative and original. I just don't find it enjoyable because of the creators' choice to film it in Spanish with English subtitles.

Avenue 5 (2020–2022)

If you don't like this show, then it's not meant for you.

[8/10 · 8 October 2022]

So many people seem to think that if they don't like something, then it must be bad. That is not true. Something can be good and, at the same time, not enjoyable for everybody. I don't like the music of Mariah Carey. That doesn't make her a bad singer. I'm not interested in boxing, so I didn't care for "Raging Bull." That doesn't make it a bad movie, it just wasn't for me.

If you don't like dark humor, you won't like this show. That doesn't make it bad, it's just not for you. I've read reviews in which the humor has been called "forced" and "not witty." I'm wondering if these people actually watched the same show that I watched, because I find the humor to be a good mix of wit and slapstick.

It seems that some people also get extremely angry when a show isn't what they expected it to be. It's not "The Orville," it's not "Spaceballs," and it's not "Veep." I read someone complain about the character actors. Why? If you want an actor to play a certain type of character, why not cast someone who's good at it?

Ignore the bad reviews. If you haven't seen it, give it a try. If you like it, great! If you don't, then it's just not meant for you. You don't have to come here and give it one star and rant, thus potentially ruining it for those of us who do enjoy it.

Brightburn (2019)

What I dislike most about this movie is how much better it could have been.

[6/10 · 28 March 2022]

There's not much else to say. The concept of this movie is very interesting. Unfortunately, the acting and the story leave much to be desired. I really wanted to like this movie more because the plot descriptions are so cool.

I wish they had put more effort into this movie. It could have been great.

Dave: The Observer (2021) Season 2, Episode 3

This episode should have come with a warning.

[3/10 · 27 June 2021]

I normally love this show, but this episode was terrible. I like to watch TV while I'm eating dinner.

There was way too much gross-out "humor" in this episode. Even thinking about it makes me want to vomit.

I really hope that this show never has an episode like this again.

The Boys (2019– )

I would have given it nine stars if not for the bad CG.

[8/10 · 12 April 2020]

I really hope the next season doesn't go full CG like the first season did halfway through. They brought it back to live acting in the last episode, which, in my opinion, saved it. It's a good show. It has a good story. The premise is interesting. The writing is excellent (I have the luxury of having not read the comic books, so I can't complain about the differences). The CG is terrible.

I hope the next season comprises entirely live actors. Save the CG for special effects and use it sparingly.

The Expanse (2015–2022)

It was good until it switched to CG.

[6/10 · 12 April 2020]

Why is nobody else bothered by this? "The Expanse" was a solid SciFi show with decent acting and a good story, but then it switched to CG. The acting went down the drain because there was no longer any acting. The immersive affect was gone.

I really liked this show before it went to CG and I'm sorely disappointed. I get that they needed to save money, but a good ending would have been better than a switch to CG.

Catch-22 (2019)

An excellent, beautiful adaptation.

[9/10 · 17 March 2020]

"Catch-22" is one of my favorite books. It's actually the only book that I enjoyed more the second time I read it (probably because I knew what the hell was going on). Anyway, as has been stated before, this book is very difficult to capture on screen. The book is not written in a linear way. It tells bits and pieces of the whole story in a non-chronological way and tells them over and over with more detail each time until you finally get the whole picture by the end of the book. You can't do that onscreen if you want people to keep watching. The book also gets surreal at times, and I noticed that they decided to leave out the more surreal aspects of the book, like when Nately's whore kept appearing out of nowhere and attacking Yossarian with a knife. I think that was a good choice. It made the story more accessible to people who haven't read the book.

Everything about this miniseries is done well. The acting is excellent, the humor and horror are mixed well, as they are in the book, and the score is beautiful.

One thing I wish I had known going into it, though, was that Major de Coverley wouldn't be coming back. In the book he comes back, so I kept waiting for the "Give me eat" scene from the book, which never came in the miniseries.

Animals.: Pigeons (2018) Season 3, Episode 3

God-awful

[2/10 · 8 October 2018]

This is the absolute worst episode of this show. I only gave it two stars because I think I enjoyed maybe a collective two minutes of it.

Channel Zero (2016–2018)

I'm still waiting for a good season of this show.

[5 October 2018]

I really want to like this show. The premise is great, but it has yet to deliver a good season. "Candle Cove" had potential, but the acting was terrible. "No-end House" was confusing and boring. "Butcher's Block" was just disgusting. I really hope this season is the one that finally kicks it off.

Child of God (2013)

Meant for people who have read the book.

[7/10 · 16 July 2018]

This movie is actually pretty good. The problem with it is that it does not stand alone as a movie. If you haven't read the book, you probably won't like the movie. If you have read the book, then you will enjoy this adaptation of a sympathetic depiction of a lonely serial killer.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

What the hell did I just watch?

[6/10 · 8 May 2015]

There's plenty of good special effects in this movie, but the story is beyond confusing.

It takes about half an hour for the story to actually get started. From that point, it just gets more confusing. Winged lizard men, a random elephant guy, a villain with an unexplained messed-up voice... yeah. The plot is so confusing and the characters are so difficult to keep track of that I just stopped caring toward the end.

The only think this movie lacked was a few clowns running around in the background. It's the kind of move that leaves you asking, "Sure, why not?"

Let Me In (I) (2010)

OK, so that's another way that a movie can happen.

[8/10 · 4 May 2015]

I don't know if this movie is supposed to be heartwarming or blood-chilling. That's how good it is. The end left me feeling like, "So, yeah, I just watched that." It's very good, unconventional, and leaves a lot for interpretation.

I haven't seen the Twilight movies because I don't want to see them, but from what I've heard about Twilight, this movie is probably a vampire drama for people who hate Twilight, and it's far more on-target. Vampires should not be dashing and romantic. Vampires should be grim.

This movie is very grim.

Kick-Ass (2010)

It can't decide if it's funny or serious, so it tries and fails at both.

[4/10 · 12 April 2015]

This movie can't decide if it wants to be funny or serious, so it tries and fails at both. It's gratuitously violent and it makes no sense. I'm generally open-minded when it comes to artistic films, but I can't give this movie a pass. It just sucks.

I really wanted to like this move. I usually like comic book movies, and I particularly enjoy alternate super-hero movies and TV shows, such as "The Tick" and "The Venture Bros." Unfortunately, this movie fell very short of my expectations. I kept checking the time, hoping that it was just about to get good.

Don't waste two hours of your life watching it, like I did. If you want to watch a good alternate super-hero movie, watch "Defendor."

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

I thought this movie adaptation was excellent.

[9/10 · 11 February 2013]

I have seen the stage production, which was awesome, and I think this adaptation lives up to it. I particularly liked how they took out the supernatural aspect and re-adapted it. The Phantom wasn't a real magician, but he was a very clever illusionist. Also, the combination of satire, drama, and creepiness was excellent, and the singing time vs. talking time really worked.

Some people automatically hate this movie because it's a movie adaptation of an excellent Broadway stage performance (while disregarding that Andrew Lloyd Weber was one of the producers). Some people automatically hate this movie because the book has been made into a movie before. Some people, such as my former roommate, whom I'm pretty sure had not read the book, seen the old movie, or watched the stage production, just hate new movies about old things for the sake of hating them.

Those people are choosing to be ignorant just to make a point.

Another reviewer said it well when he said to watch it with an open mind. It's not the stage production. The story is a little different. Don't expect something that is exactly word-for-word and song-for-song as the stage production, and the singers aren't as good as the original cast (whom I'm pretty sure are retired now), but they are good.

True Grit (2010)

Much better than 7.4

[10/10 · 9 February 2013]

The rating of this movie must have been artificially brought down by ignorant people who automatically hate new versions of movies, regardless of the quality. I've seen both adaptations (remember, both versions are based on the book) and, personally, I think the newer one is better.

I know that John Wayne was revered, but it's time for us to be honest with ourselves: John Wayne wasn't a very good actor. Yeah, I said it. He could only play one character (himself) and it was only suitable for two roles: cowboy and soldier.

Jeff Bridges, on the other hand, is an amazing actor. Look at the plethora of roles he's played. In "The Big Lebowski" he was an aging California stoner, in "Crazy Heart" he was a country music singer/songwriter (based loosely on legendary, yet not so well-known, real-life icons), in "The Lookout" he was a disabled former meth cook on assisted living, in "True Grit" he was an old-fashioned, hard-living lawman.

So, as much as everyone loves John Wayne, it's time to admit that Jeff Bridges is simply a better actor and his portrayal of Rooster was far grittier (sorry for the wordplay) than John Wayne's portrayal.