Airman87

The entire premise of the show relies on a personal assistant being convicted of solicitation of a child and a linguistics manager molesting child star Drake. The show aims to paint Dan Schneider as guilty of far more than workplace harassment, but the evidence beyond speculation is almost non-existent aside from on-set massages. Some of the child actors and their parents offering to tell their stories of means words offending them comes off as nothing more than vindictive anger when it's revealed their contracts were not renewed.

With thousands of various employees and contractors in Nickelodeon's history, I am sure there were those who were truly evil. That is just statistics. Without first-hand testimony from people like Amanda Bynes or Jennette McCurdy, it is hard to feel empathetic. All we can do is interpret the Schneider situation much like Weinstein, where the industry still protects them because it wants to protect itself. This documentary offers contradiction, with Drake saying that Schneider was the only person who reached out to him and offered any help whatsoever. This documentary also wants it both ways, blaming every sexual innuendo made by prop, joke, gag, or otherwise, in the entirety of Nickelodeon, on strictly Schneider. It's impressive that Schneider is so talented, he writes for every show that hundreds of other writers are completely unnecessary, merely on the payroll out of charity (yes, that's sarcasm).

Is this a story that needed to be told? Maybe, but it definitely did not need to be milked over four episodes...

I rewatched all five seasons of Pacific Blue over the span of a month and can definitely see the gradual decline and reason why it was cancelled. As an impressionable young teenager when the show came out, who was also into mountain biking at the time, this show had the ultimate cool factor for me.

Upon rewatching the entire show recently, the first two seasons are exactly what I remembered: Corny 90's that played on the whole extreme sports theme with segments of skydiving, street luge, trials stunts with Hans Rey, fictional mountain bike endurance racing. There were also lots of the infamous bike chase sequences many remember. The overall premise of the show was mostly petty crimes with hopeful messaging. It has a roundness of characters like the station bike mechanic played by Lander.

The third season went downhill quick, with too much drama and love relationships that hurt the overall flow. The ending to the season is a cheap ploy of emotions.

The fourth season was starkly different... The show lost its two most suave male characters in Ferraez and Rossovich, so it lost a lot of that cool factor. The new cast took several episodes to get into the flow of matching chemistry. The writing in the fourth season is noticeably worse, as it becomes NCIS instead of Pacific Blue with ridiculous plots and undercover investigation work. The fifth season largely follows the fourth. People probably remember the last two seasons the most thanks to the addition of Mario Lopez and Shanna Moakler, but truth is, the last two seasons are the worst.

In my opinion, if you want to watch this for nostalgia factor, just watch the first two seasons. If you watch the entire show in chronological order, you'll be disappointed as the quality declines.

There is a brilliant film here, one that can be devoid of the pro-socialism commentary and sexual liberation messaging that is largely absent from the source material in Alasdair Gray's 1992 novel. The film's runtime was a bit portly for the substance within. Some of the sets (though mostly CGI) are brilliant and the costuming is superb for a fictional time piece in turn of century Victorian era.

If you like the movie, you'll probably dislike the novel. If you liked the novel, this movie is a completely different story.

This film reads like a euphemism for upper class white girls that decide to take a year off after school to 'find themselves', only to spend a whole summer being reamed by hairy foreigners. The most dishonest part of the film was not having Max develop a single love interest while Bella was gone, only for Bella to return and be indignant with a surprise-Pikachu-face that Max dared to find love without her.

It's worth the watch for what it is, but I was rather let down with what feels like wasted potential for heavy-handed empowerment cliches consuming the bulk of its runtime.

I am a Florida Trail hiker. I know the area he died. The only real mystery you'll find in Mostly Harmless' story is the struggle to identify him. I do not know why the media continues making his death some grand mystery.

Here are the real facts. He would have known there was a road, a tourist-filled animal adventure park, and even a town with emergency services just a half-day's hike away; because that is the direction he came from! If he had an emergency (i.e. Caught giardia) and was able to hike out, he could have just turned around from where he came from and went for help. A fatal snake bite is a high possibility, but an autopsy report would have shown that.

What likely happened is he starved himself on his journey southward to such a frail state that he ended up getting heat stroke that was fatal. He probably had not been drinking, felt delirious and cold, so he went inside his tent to lay down, lost consciousness, and that was it... The time of year and conditions are brutal, and there is some uncertainty about his water filtration/supply. It is possible he was also rationing water because he did not want to drink water from the swamp and canals.

The only unanswered question about this case is: Was the starvation intentional (to end his own life) or was the starvation due to his hubris and penny-pinching? He was unprepared for basically the entirety of his journey. Was he just trying to just be cheap and buy/eat as little food as possible? He was known to work for free meals along the way, despite having more than enough cash to make it to Key West (his final destination where he wanted to get a job). He was likely saving that cash for rent money and refused to buy basic supplies, having previously had an eating disorder where he refused to eat, he would be accustomed to it.

Either way, it is a sad story, even if he was (supposedly) outcasted for being violent toward other people in his past. I just personally don't believe there is anything very mysterious here other than a story that makes people gossip.

Fortunately for comedy, The Dreamer and Chappelle once again go out of their way to prove no one deserves special treatment or should be off limits from being the recipient of a joke. Unfortunately for us, Dave spends a large chunk of this special for 'story time with Dave' rather than focusing on the laughs. The setups for many punchlines are often too stretched and segue into other life stories.

Preachy Dave is back, going on a long-winded and somewhat incoherent set of stories from Russian Mobsters to Lil Nas X. The ending of the special really ruined an otherwise typical set for Chapelle. It came off as a self-absorbed sermon devoid of humor. Chapelle is one of the GOATs, and it's disheartening to see him feel the need to flaunt such borderline narcissistic behavior.

I hope Dave can get back focused on his next special. Give us a comedian doing an hour of comedy ravaging everyone and everything, not a pastor preaching a life full of dreams.

...I'm just saying, on the venn-diagram graph, the overlapping circles of (predominately female) viewers between Amy Schumer and Matt Rife must be pretty high. While Rife may not steal jokes like Schumer, he certainly is full of hubris and overconfidence, leaning into his forte as eye candy for the mid-30 something female audience member. Most people probably recognize Rife from his viral social media videos doing crowd work. His first big special in 'Natural Selection' is the exact opposite: lack of spontaneity, bland, predictable, and chasing the low hanging fruit. It's middle-of-the-road fodder found at every comedy club. If someone's first and only impression of Rife is his crowd work videos, they will probably be disappointed by their first experience of Rife with a scripted set. On the other hand, if you enjoyed 'Natural Selection', you probably land in the center of that venn-diagram...

The concept is novel: Normalize regular bodies and start with sexual attraction first. Unfortunately it is anything but. This is still a TV show, which means all the people featured had to have the desire to appear naked on the show, they had to audition for these parts, and then casting directors still hand selected each and every one of these people to ensure they were screen-ready candidates with the right personalities (and bodies). This is all pretty evident by the fact the average penis size of the men appearing in the show are above the national UK/US average penis size. This is also evident by the fact the average woman's BMI (body mass index) on this show is substantially lower than the UK/US national average BMI. There a few exceptions here or there, but let's be honest: if there were six naked, ugly, and morbidly obese people in every selection round, no one would watch this show. At best, this show is low brow fodder to make us not feel the same guilt as watching porn guised as normalizing that everyone of us has a different body.

Theater lovers and set designers rejoice. Wes has returned with a new world of pastel laden backdrops and tasty dialogue. Fresh off the heels of a very mediocrely received Asteroid City, The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar dazzles in short format. Those who are into theater plays with long monologues and vivid sets will adorn Henry Sugar's story. The film's structure is well composed and cut down to such a necessity-like level that it almost becomes candy. While absent anything particularly award worthy in performances, the ensemble is an extremely likable cast who deliver truthful to their characters. There is little by way of dislike...unless Wes' style has never been appealing to you, because this very much feels like Wes giving an encore acoustically.

In true Mark Norman fashion of speed balling the jokes, Normand fits more jokes into a single 50 minute set than most comedics would have spread across five different specials. The low tone zingers are plentiful, but so is the constant pacing back and forth and flailing hand gestures that become borderline nausea inducing. The jokes are wide ranging, but they never really push the edge or go too far. As social commentary, Soup to Nuts is a safe play. While I never found myself laughing hysterically, those who are removed from watching comedy regularly will probably find it just satiable enough to keep watching.

With the oversaturation of cancel culture friendly, unfunny content from Bert Kreischer and Tom Segura, Shane Gillis returns to bring it all down. Shane really throttles the line the entire special, stepping over it and then crossing right back. Sure, there were a few jokes that didn't resonate with me, and watching Shane's awkward body mannerisms made me as uncomfortable as he probably was; but when the jokes hit, they hit hard. My only complaint is the set probably could have used another 10 minutes of material. The question most people should be asking after watching is, when do we get another Shane special?

This whole special feels like Santino was angry and drunk when he wrote it. Cheeseburger really is a comedy set that is divided into two parts. The first half is hyper focused on politics. It's fatal flaw is Santino can't help but parade his West Coast elite mentality around. As a comedian he should know how badly this alienates half his audience. The second half of the set detours slightly and becomes way too preachy, focusing more on Santino's personal views while being thin on jokes. There is one massive five minute setup for a single joke to land come the end. As someone who occasionally watches highlights of the Bad Friends podcast with Santino and Bobby Lee, I was expecting more out of Santino than this...

Bert Kreischer is easily at the top of the index of least funny people relative to their fame. I don't want to say I despise Bert, because he seems genuine in a lot of ways outside of standup comedy, but this special is pretty terrible. My prejudices aside Bert against, Razzle Dazzle really feels like Bert phoned it in, reusing old jokes and harping on overexaggerated mediocrity of family story time. Normally I can stomach one of Bert's specials if I am pretty bored, but this was on another level that I could not finish it. Bert has done himself no favors if he believes this special while serve as pasturage for growing new fans. This special is a hard pass for me on a recommendation.

Most people would probably say Tom Segura does not have any specific style of comedy if you asked them. That's because his style is shades of gray tones, bland, and comfortable fodder for an older couple in wanting some 'spicy' entertainment for their evening date out. That's how I would describe Segura's schtick.

Segura's special Sledgehammer is Segura at his absolute worst: delivering some of the most banal and commonplace jokes possible. One specific set about his two boys versus his cousin's two girls wasn't even humor - you could honestly mistake it for some incoherent drunk at a bar just discussing his ordinary day. The humor in this Netflix special is so dry it feels like it is just a recording of a regular touring set he would do anywhere. If Segura wrote new jokes for this comedy special they sure weren't flushed out beforehand.

People who don't regularly watch standup comedy will probably find Sledgehammer acceptable enough, maybe even find a few chuckles here or there, but definitely not sidesplitting humor. To the people like me that have been watching standup going on 30 years now, you won't find what you're looking for here.

The most I can say about the way this documentary was pieced together is, it really makes Johnny look just how everyone sees him: A kid whose parents are 100% the reason Johnny ended up the way he did in life; parents letting Johnny do whatever he wants, and parents who would lie and be unethical to help their kid advance his way through life rather than force change and take accountability. I wonder if the parents are that tone deaf to even realize how badly they came off in this documentary.

For those familiar with Manziel and his story, this documentary offers little in terms of new material. At best, it just reaffirms suspicions most college football fans had about the rampant drinking, partying, alcohol, and improper benefits. The construction of this documentary was poorly laid out. Manziel's lightning-in-the-bottle, SEC record setting freshman season at Texas A&M was glossed over in less than 10 minutes of total content to pave way for the longer, drawn-out story of improper benefits (selling autographs). Scheming sobriety for the draft was a large portion of the film, as well. Manziel's season with the Cleveland Browns and his performance meltdown was incredibly terse, choosing to highlight battles off-field rather than on-field performances. About 90% of this documentary was solely focused on improper benefits and Johnny's addictions. What happened after Johnny's time with the Browns is completely omitted, as if it never even happened, including getting kicked out of the CFL.

The only way I'd tell someone to watch this documentary is if they needed help clearing their conscious, so that they don't feel any empathy toward the Manziel's...

When things start going awry in Barbieland, it is up to 'stereotypical Barbie' (blonde hair, blue eyed version) to reset the matriarchal pieces in the perfect plastic world that represents everyone equally...or slightly less equal (if inverse to reality were offsetting). While Robbie is an idealistic Barbie, Gosling's charismatic nature completely directs attention away from Margot anytime the two share frame - it really does become the Ken movie for much of the second act as Gosling's character dominates the screen.

Of course, this is all the plot oversimplified to its core. The moments of unabashed humor, and there is lots of it, speak for Gerwig's witted personality...unfortunately the preachy tone carried throughout the movie also does too. The film has its moments, even if the ending leaves some viewers indifferent. It's probably worth the watch if you just want a few chuckles and nothing more.

Dead Reckoning Part One has more action, explosions, and bigger stunts than any previous Mission: Impossible before it. The common enemy is topical and the threat to IMF's future greater than ever. The ending for a Part One film is satiable and could easily make this film stand alone without a sequel because it does not end on a cliffhanger.

Having said that, I am still undecided if this or Fallout is the best Mission: Impossible. The story of Fallout feels more natural and is an airtight script, while Dead Reckoning Part One leaves some desires and lacks much necessary character redemptions to reset the pieces.

On the technical side of Dead Reckoning Part One, the two largest stunts that made large media buzz during filming (the base jump and steam engine over a cliff), were both incredibly CGI'd and actually looked bad for all the hubris made about them. Many of the chase and fight sequences had too many tight angle, high motion shots that just made the picture blurry and distracted from putting viewers 'into the fight'.

All said, Dead Reckoning Part One is still a fantastic movie in the Mission: Impossible franchise and absolutely one of the best movies of the year. And depending on your view, it may be the best movie of the franchise...

Elemental never really stretches beyond the straightforwardness and banality of its love story - that in a melting pot where desires to maintain our individual ancestral identity paramount all, boundaries and traditions were meant for breaking. In the typical overdone relationship dynamic, Ember plays the more rebellious individual while Wade is the more averse, introverted individual. The magic of Elemental lays in the fictitious world it has created for itself. The canvas painted by the animators is nothing short of some of Pixar's best work, steeped in rich visuals, textures, and blithesome neighborhoods. There is lots of curiosity-peaking interest in this universe worth exploring, unfortunately the film and story just never decides to fully take its viewers there...

Ultimately, the film is a slow downward spiral until the third act's climax and tone shift. For what it lacks in originality, and the stereotypical tropes of female empowerment and middle age crisis it repetitively falls into, it makes up for with some lighthearted humor. I would caution to say it's an interesting character study, as much of the narrative is too predictable. This film is perhaps slightly more polished and mature than your typical Romcom is, though likely just as satiable for that target audience. There is little to like in this movie, which is why I would recommend to skip it.

Like the two Guardians films before it, Gunn and company deliver the same swanky directorial style and suave characters that allowed the Guardians franchise to standout above the other MCU films.

Unfortunately, this film doesn't stretch beyond it's comfort zone and feels much like the other two. Majority of Volume 3's story serves only as a vessel to setup the characters' expected mannerisms and banter with one another. The Rocket origin story pulls on dispirited kinship of cute, furry animals and emotions that are too forced feeling, with the obvious intention of drawing viewer investment into another trite save-the-galaxy storyline. For better or worse, it's much the same Guardians for this final installment as it's predecessors, which will undoubtedly leave the loyal congregation of MCU fans satisfied.

For as much as there is to like about Sisu, and there is a lot, the film does ask the viewer in equal parts to continuously suspend reality. Sisu is at its best in close quarters combat, when the fists and knives take center. The cinematography plays with the vast landscapes and camera techniques (one forced perspective shot of a tank staring down the gold prospector left me awestruck). The brisk runtime of 91 minutes ensures there aren't many lulls between Nazi blood being spilled. There is copious gore from both Nazis and our protagonist's unwilling desire to die. There are even damsels in distress.

I cannot say Sisu is exactly what I expected from the trailer, because truth be told, I wasn't expecting mimicry sequences of Mission Impossible hanging from a plane, Rambo stalking with a survival knife, or the other half dozen far-fetched antics. The film's unwilling desire to never take itself too seriously is both why it works so good, and perhaps what ultimately keeps it from being even better...

Absent the traditional Guy Ritchie directing flare you would expect, The Covenant makes a strong push in the sea of American war movies to be just good enough to be highly enjoyable. The film doesn't say anything particularly new about war, nor does it deliver an unseen perspective of war (the film is not even based on true events), but it does execute its own story in a digestible way as to not come off as another American exceptionalism piece. The film's pacing is fast to keep viewers invested, Gyllenhaal and Salim deliver outstanding performances, the cinematography is full of wide scapes and close chasers, the choreographed gun fights are believable enough, and the story of brotherhood has a unique angle.

For what it is, The Covenant is a much better film than I anticipated, and would recommend the watch if you're looking for a night of entertainment.

As a movie there is more than enough suspense served by a well casted ensemble to keep viewers engaged; as a true story, the films palliates both people and company. I was skeptical about how such limited source material would turn into a palatable movie, but Affleck successfully executes a film that pulls on nostalgia and American heroism, albeit at a cost of total accuracy.

The film's biggest turnoff for me was the constant theme throughout of portraying how certain Sonny Vaccaro (played by Matt Damon) was that Jordan would be The GOAT, which in reality, it was a gamble like the hundreds of other players in Nike's history. Vaccaro would go on to be wrong about many other players after taking jobs at rivals Adidas and Reebok. The weight and magnitude of Jordan needing to be a success for Nike's future was also too exaggerated in the movie - Nike had just gone public and was having record sales the same year they signed Jordan. Other quandaries such as Jordan's father, Nike's dubious factory labor (which even existed back in '84), and several other topics were glanced over to make the film more agreeable.

My opinion: Take the film at its face value entertainment and you'll enjoy it, just don't use it as a refresher on real history.

I'll get right to it: From the opening scene to the credits roll, at no point in the movie was I on the edge of my seat in uncertainty. The nonchalant demeanor our protagonists carried throughout the entirety of the runtime, coupled with inoffensive witticisms bordering on Dad jokes, were incredibly over the top and made this whole ride a sure thing. If you are looking for a fun, feel-good movie that never makes you too uncomfortable or challenges your faith in the predictable outcome, then D&D: Honor Among Thieves is your ticket. For me, I just wish the film makers tried to challenge the viewer more than they did.

If you did not know what actually inspired the Women Talking novel, you would be led to believe this movie was about an Amish community somewhere in the USA from such cues as an American accented 2010 Census worker, conventional jail system with bonds, etc. The reality is years ago, many governments across Central and South America attracted Mennonite communities to move abroad and help farm (to subsidize the unstable food supply in these countries); in exchange, these corrupt governments would allow the Mennonites to live in isolation with very limited government oversight on their communities. This blind eye allowed decades of systematic abuse, much of which still continues to this very day. This physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, particularly in a rural Mennonite community in Bolivia, is what inspired the novel by the same name.

Like the novel, the film itself is more of a fictional work to the emotional reaction of female abuse than it is based on true events. Despite the film making somewhat large generalizations and stereotypes, it does raise some interesting philosophical points about the system in which both men and women are brought up into. It's not quite as heavyhanded anti-male piece as it seems on face value, rather more of a story about initiating change.

Skip it or watch it? My intuition says watch it for the impressive list of actresses delivering some bullish performances, but none of the female ensemble saw much fanfare this awards season. Skip it if you are going to be disappointed to find out almost nothing you saw is true about this movie (other than Mennonite abuse is real).

Full Swing is Netflix's first attempt at taking a cookie cutter approach to their incredibly successful Drive to Survive series and applying the formula to another sport. Unfortunately all the things that make Drive to Survive so successful for diehard F1 fans - insight into specific controversies, dynamic of teams and racers, and the governing bodies decision making - are completely absent from Full Swing.

True golf fans will have to wait until the very last episode before Full Swing attempts to wholly address the PGA's inside decision making on LIV and the future of the sport. Rather unfortunately, it's only told from Rory's perspective. Like a heavily guarded military, we get no actual insight from PGA officials, footage or audio of player and league meetings, nor official interviews from PGA organizers.

What Full Swing does is spend most of it's time loitering around the personal life stories of specific players. It's edited in a way that wants you to believe the Netflix crews were following these players before their breakout or reaffirming wins, but in reality, you can tell the interviews and personal life filming was just cleverly edited and mixed with stock Tour footage to trick you into the timeline of events.

If you want to know certain golfers better, this is a good show for that. If you're hoping it brings something new to the table that was unknown or unseen by the golf community, this show offers little in that regard.