SixteenFiftyNine

It seems as though John Smith was just out one day and shot some random film footage that he then decided to turn into a film short. After having viewed the footage he shot he came up with the idea that he would narrate it as though he were actually directing the players. But then along the way he's no longer the director, now he's more a commentator.

I found nothing interesting about this short beyond my curiosity to see what it was about. What's it about? Nothing. That seems to be the point but it's really not even particularly interesting to watch. Nothing special takes place and it's not particularly creative. Maybe for the time it was. Anyone could recreate this, toss it on Youtube and it wouldn't get any attention. Not that Youtube is a place for great film. Is that a statement about our lives now? Given I was teen when this was filmed I can't see it being interesting even then. We could have shot something equally as uninteresting in my HS film class. I can see why he titled it "The Girl Chewing Gum" since that girl in platform shoes is probably the most interesting element of the short. She's the only reason I rate it as high as I do.

I'll probably get a lot of downvotes on this but I'm not a pretentious film snob. I think if anything John Smith is laughing that some are so taken by this short.

I became disappointed early with the writing. Comedy should still stick to some sense of accuracy when dealing with a real-world situation that is a primary element to the plot that honestly isn't written as a comedic element. In that respect, it was failing swiftly. Stupinsky and Phillips, can we talk about some basics like how real estate tax liens work? I really want to go into spoiler mode here to drag the both of you one this but I'm never one to want to put spoilers into a review of a newer movie. Also, how about how a front-wheel drive car behaves when attached to a tow hook? You nearly lost me right away. These things hurt a script for those of us detail oriented types and can sometimes make us stop watching very quickly. But fortunately Jennifer Lawrence brought her crazy real-life sense of lunacy and wit to this movie and that saves it along with a notable performance by Andrew Barth Feldman including his performance of Maneater. Matthew Broderick was underused unfortunately.

I honestly didn't expect much from this movie simply by the title. The reality is that it's a surprisingly good film. I'd say that this is the best I've seen from Efron to this point in his career. I've somewhat enjoyed him in some other movies, but this is my favorite with him. The story is more serious than both the title and the typical movie "poster" for it would lead us to believe.

I'm mostly struck by the ignorance that a man could have about the situation in Vietnam given he had previously spent years in the USMC. Having been in the military myself I learned a lot of things very quickly and that was during "peacetime" enlistment about the same number of years past the Vietnam war as Chick was past the Korean war. We both entered at the same age as well. I suspect that's because Chick was someone who made certain assumptions going in and he may likely have been a much less questioning soldier than I was, that's certainly what they want in a soldier.

Based on his own book, co-written with J. T. Molloy, this is a story I'm surprised took this long to make it to page and screen. How accurate is his story? I'm sure there is some embellishment but given that he's not the last of his group still on this Earth I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that the story has a reasonable amount of accuracy. Either that or his friends are good sports and willing to play along. ;)

The bottom line, one hell of a story and an entertaining movie that should provoke some deep thought from those blind to what military actions mean.

"That's what war is, it's one giant crime scene."

The woman named Jodi Foster in this is simply a fame monger who would like to be as famous as Jodi Foster "the director" as she put it, not as you'd think someone referring to Ms. Foster would if they are going to mention the director aspect, actor/director. This nobody Jodi Foster has a need for attention, and it completely makes a mockery of this entire episode and the crime. Honestly, the moment she started talking you could tell she was telling nonsense. They try very hard near the end to equate these numbers and alpha-numeric "clues" to something solid but the fact is they don't. This did not lead to Marliz's body or any evidence. Unsolved Mysteries should be ashamed of themselves, especially for opening the episode with this looney. The worst part of it is she's dragged her daughter into her nonsense since she was groomed on this paranormal crap from a young age. Just honestly shameful on the part of this nobody Jodi Foster and Unsolved.

I've been a big fan previously. This one was way, way below past stand-up specials. Bits start and seem to not go to a real punchline moment. Feels like he forgets where it's going midpoint. Sebastian's stand-up has typically been laugh out loud loudly funny, this one was good for snickers. His eyes appear red and many have suggested maybe he was stoned for this performance which may explain how the bits end with a whimper and no good punchline. The greyhound bit just seemed to evaporate after the visual bit, that was all there was? Disappointing. Giving it a 5 might even be generous for me. I'm almost surprised Netflix deemed this to be suitable for streaming, everything felt unfinished. I hope this is not what to expect in the future. Had I paid to attend this show I'd have been rather irritated.

Okay, as of writing my review there are 3 reviews here for this "movie" already. Two of them rate it a 1 and one rates 10. 10? Seriously, it's nowhere near a 10 in any sense. Make no mistake, this is far closer to the 1 ratings than a 10 for anyone being honest. I moved it up one because it seems lit well, it's in focus and the actors were okay looking. Yay. The acting, story and directing are all subpar. I started off watching with the intent to watch it all the way through as I was curious what it was about since I had only a one sentence description to go b. Quite quickly found myself ffwding in bites to see if it had any merit at all, it really doesn't. If you're bored, looking for something new to watch and found this you'll probably want to not waste the time. That said, I'll bet this is a story derived from some real-life Scottsdale living. ;) That part I'd bet is not exactly inaccurate.

As for the comments in the parents guide, the 2 longer entries supposedly describing two different sexual scenes are completely inaccurate and quite simply worded to entice a viewer with nonsense. I found them pretty funny when I saw them. Yep, there's some nudity on top and behind as well as simulated sexual interaction, typical R rating stuff, not NC-17 or Unrated and certainly not X or XXX. The breasts aren't large as per the descriptions, there is no labia in view in any scene so whoever wrote those either had wild imagination or is an incel living in mom's basement and never actually encountered any of those in real life so they were at a loss to actually recognize anything. Maybe if it were as described this could fit someone's needs as an adult "film." This "work" is simply a bad attempt with some token nudity to try to entice people to watch it. I was really generous giving it 2 stars.

Wow, as in I can't believe how bad it is. I last saw this about 1976 at a drive-in. It's the typical drive-in movie from that era where we didn't even really get, or care, how bad it was. It was a sex driven excuse to get us in the drive-in with cases of beer to meet up with other friends (girls). Since I was only 16 at the time, that meant I was sometimes in the trunk with the beer. Watching this movie now just isn't the same because all that stands out is how terrible it is and memories of the fun at the drive-in which didn't involve watching the movie very much. I can't believe someone could rate this movie a 10. And no, none of the girls (Susanne Severeid is Jan and credited in the movie as only "Susanne") have an "eerie resemblance to Eve Plumb." at best it's a similarity, definitely not eerie. Even on a scale of bad movies it doesn't rate that good because it's just bad and not creative bad. Example, how creative is it to have a Mae West type with the name of June East? I gave it one star each for the bounce of Bebe (Marcy Albrecht) and Monica's (Rae Sperling) Mounds shirt ;) as well as the SoCal scenery of the times.

That unfortunately tells most of the story about this show. Having been in restoration and custom work I have a lot of interest in these shows. The work and the subject of the work can be interesting, the scripted drama is nonsense. Apparently once Boyd Coddington's American Hot Rodder and American Chopper/Orange County Choppers set the bar that's what most of these shows think they need to bring even, if it has to be completely, or nearly completely manufactured. If you know anything about restoration and what you're looking at on this show in particular, they'll show you something that is a lie. Example, the episode I just finished watching and a bunch of drama about this new guy working with the kid and supposedly grinding thru the metal. You can clearly see he gauged the metal a little (easily fixed with some TIG or even MIG skill) but the hole is actually a manufactured in hole. Grind holes don't have surface corrosion around the inside diameter of it. SMH. This was just the example I watched just now, there are so many more like this. The show is a good solid 8 or more for subject of restorations. Overall, with all the nonsense, I feel I'm being generous with a 4. The scripted crap is distracting.

I guess Jay is bored with his cars. This show worked for Groucho because Groucho was an interesting character. Jay Leno, not so much. I'll admit I went into this not a fan of the idea because the appearance of this show moved others we watch daily. I tried watching it, hoping that maybe it had some entertainment value my doubts were confirmed. Go back to your garage Jay. I realize it has a limited appeal to just us car guys and doesn't make you truckloads more cash like your time on the Tonight Show but this show has no entertainment value.

I loved the premise of this show. Satirically exposing those who make riches running mega/super-churches need proper shade cast their way. Unfortunately even with this excellent subject matter and Kim Cattrall as well as Gerald McRaney it's still lacking and real interest. For me it seemed to relate to much of the younger cast just not making any of it interesting. Maybe this was writing, maybe it was something else in the chemistry. I tried to enjoy the show but it just never kept me that engaged. There are a lot of subtle bits in it casting shade where it belongs and that part was golden. The backwards spinning globe isn't the goof it's listed as here on IMDB, this is a satire show and it's done on purpose to make a point, a very accurate point.

Well they are constantly repeating for pure filler. Repetition like that is the dead giveaway that there is no substance. Drag it out. Drag it out. Drag it out. Because there is nothing to find.

This show is the model for how to keep a fool in suspense.

It's been said elsewhere, in fact SnoopyStyle basically wrote what I was about to write. The first "season" which unfortunately contains only 3 episodes is a fun and interestingly different show.

The second "season" which contains 6 episodes mostly isn't worth watching. The chemistry between DI Armstrong (Toby Stephens) and DI Kate Bishop (Lucy Punch) has great energy and is what had me watching this beyond the first episode. 3 episodes later on Prime and it's suddenly season 2 already and DI Armstrong has a new partner. My interest flatlined after giving it a chance. All of the quirky fun and chemistry that it had with Punch has suddenly evaporated. I'm unfamiliar with Miranda Raison and she my well be a perfectly good actress but the magic was gone. No wonder it didn't live beyond that second season.

All you need to know about this is the lone trivia item. "Despite being billed as a "Documentary", this film is comprised of entirely fictional material." For those that actually think this is a documentary, I suggest you learn to ask for facts and proof to verify them. We live in an age where it's nearly impossible to hide the real truth and yet we have problems with conspiracy theory still and even at a far greater extent simply because people *want* to believe something. It's like religion.

I did not watch this show in it's day even though I would have been right in it's demographic then, I think I may have caught an episode or two but don't really recall. I knew the premise and who doesn't love watching good looking people, in my case the swimsuit clad women. Being a little bored with the usual streaming selections lately I thought I'd try it out now. Hope Marie Carlton was in the pilot and that caught my attention, I should have known better. If you want to watch it solely for the skin I guess you're in the right place. If you're looking for good writing and meaningful story lines this for sure isn't your show. Given that, there isn't enough of the swimwear clad women to keep me engaged in actively watching the show. I'll watch more episodes as something to have on in the background while I'm doing other things and see if any good story lines emerge but it's not a show that engages the viewer and with the changes the internet has brought likely even less so over 20 years later. I'm curious to see how the show develops over it's run though simply due to my viewing habits of having frivolous content on in the background when I'm not truly watching.

FKB is such a good show this episode is a shame. This is a flashback episode about promises, keeping them and not making ones you can't keep. Jim recalls past promises involving the kids from "four or five years ago" when Kathy had the measels and yet the children are all the same age. Why would the writers use a time period so far in the past? It's just silly. Time frame should have been a few months, not years. Terrible writing on this episode which bothers me each time I see it. Requires a ridiculous overstretch on suspension of disbelief.