plex

This artsy tour-de-force will be scrutinized for decades. Happily, this film is not for everyone, and does not fester in the pratfalls of populism. It's gloriously beautiful to look at, sometimes jaw-dropping. All of the production attributes are here and they are superbly executed; everything from set-design, art-direction, cinematography, costuming, make-up, editing, and an inspiringly fresh music score. Emma Stone undoubtedly gives an Oscar-worthy performance, if for no other reason (and there are several) there is nothing else I could compare this to. Where could she have possibly drawn this from? Impressive indeed. Defoe, Youssef, and Ruffalo combine to give a rock solid support, you couldn't ask for any better. Lastly the script is taught, complex, angular, yet comprehensive. So what's the problem? Why not 10-out-of-10? The film is too self-aware for me, it "pleasures" itself to the point of exhaustion. Just because you CAN do something doesn't always mean you SHOULD. It's needlessly excessive and as exhilarating as it is I found myself being impatient for it to end, because that exhilaration was too much for me to take for 140 minutes, the pacing became self-indulgent, so I grew to resent it more than admire it.

Taking an intentional (or accidental) cue from Mel Brooks classic "The Producers", then toss in the erstwhile Broadway embarrassment "Oh Calcutta" (also a nudie) and possibly the inspiration in some very small way for Blake Edwards S. O. B where we get to see Mary Poppins (Julie Andrews) bare her chest, we get a slight deviation/ variation of a musical with a porn twist. However in this instance we get something staged as a Broadway theatrical production but presented as a film. For a mainstream release, there certainly is a LOT of nudity, both male and female full-frontal, but hey, its the 70's so we shouldn't expect anything less. After Hollywood received thousands of complaints from automobile drivers who had kid passengers witness violence, horror and nudity on the big drive-in screens, as they were passing by on the freeway, a rating-system was introduced that controlled the showing of films to different age-groups. However in this case, this film was released at the same time Laverne & Shirley hit ABC during primetime, riding on the success of the mega hit Happy Days. Cindy Williams plays a very conservative character that had been introduced on Happy Days and very similar in the classic "American Graffiti",both starring with Ron Howard. The Hollywood brass and/or the combined strength of Penny Marshall and her brother Gary, who created Laverne & Shirley as a show, did not see the wisdom of having their co-lead star (Williams) who starred in a movie that had her included in scenes with exposed female/and male genitalia, and trivialized pornography while simultaneously playing a character Shirley, who is somewhat chaste and is "holding-out" for marriage, would send the right message to family members. Ergo, The 1st Nudie Musical was quickly swept under the rug in favor for the ABC sitcom. Oddly enough the only 2-women I wanted to see nude (Williams and the cute Diana Canova) are the only 2 performers who remained fully clothed. Oh well....

Let's face it, the only reason Upton gets gigs like this is due to her Sport's Illustrated success. It's a safe general assumption her success with S. I. was based on 2 jiggly reasons. No one has mentioned her acting ability as her asset. Casting needed an opposite yet equally known co-protagonist: enter Daddario, who has better acting chops than Upton, but still fills the bill (or in this case fills the bikini) for this role. While the film offers some eye-candy,(which is carefully restrained) it doesn't off much more. I'm surprised an actor of Macy's level would choose to direct such a pointless movie that demands so little from its cast. The storyline is cliche'd and played, and if weren't for the oft-used F-bomb, and occasional aggressive nature, it could have easily been a made-for Hallmark vehicle. Sorry fellas, no nudity: Upton offers no more than a jiggle under baggy clothes, Daddario has a brief bikini scene. That's it! It may read shallow to bring that up, but what else are we to think when the two leads are uber-hot full-figured females, who's goal is to have sex with a stud they never learn his name? The film is flat, it has no dynamic, the script is sophomoric, and every time the story goes into a direction that had potential for larger-than-life theatrics, it gets pulled-back to safety. I can imagine every scene like that playing out in a different, more adult, more suited for its R-rating, that would have people chatting about it at the office water-cooler the next day. For a "Sex-Comedy" it has very little of both. Poor Kate cannot act and she's gained weight, so I am left to ask, why are you here? You miss nothing by avoiding this film.

I ONLY gave this a high rating for what it is: Niche vintage soft-core viewing. With the Free-Love movement of the 60s also came a quickly growing of acceptance of bared breasts in the mainstream formats of film and magazines. While published nudity already existed prior to the 60's, it was mostly relegated to scientific studies or underground porn or "nudie cuties." So when it became offered to a more broader audience, it was considered cutting-edge and somewhat of a marvel. Some may not know that we, as a society, had to adjust and discover how nudity would be tolerated in society. For example: up through the 70's comparatively "harder" publications had very explicit covers, some being XXX, openly displayed in drug/grocery stores for ALL to see. Today, that kind of promotion is rarely seen even in dedicated newsstands. It's considered to be grossly misplaced if not outright offensive.

So, this film "Four Kinds of Love" was a coming-of-age film that pushed the envelope of both free-love and casual nudity on a larger stage.

This film really exists only to showcase bared breasts. There is no frontal nudity or implied sex, just a lot of topless women who casually hang out with dressed men, sometimes dancing, and thats as far as it goes. Yes, I know "full- fontal" was not "legal" until 1969 (this is a 1968 film) so I know of those limitations. Had this film been made 1-year later, who knows what the same producers would have put out? And on that note, this film closely resembles "Suburban Pagans" in just about every conceivable way: the premise is the same, the look is the same, and several of the "actors" are the same. Of the two, IMO "Pagans" is far better. There is FAR more nudity, and the addition of two spectacular specimens of the app-expanded mammalian-cage variety being Marsha Jordan and Cara Peters, which to the latter, the dance scene must be seen to be believed.

You'd assume with the erstwhile title "She'll Follow You Anywhere" billed as a "Sex-Comedy" based on nymphomania would contain sex, comedy, and maybe even some nudity. You'd assume wrong. Re-titled as "Passion Potion" I can only assume the publisher and/or distributor thought the updated moniker might attract more attention or confuse/trick the poor saps (like me) who suffered this celluloid disasters the first time-around, into wasting time again.

This waste of materials is in no-way a rated-R affair. No violence, no bad language, no nudity (OK, about 1-second of semi-nudity about an hour-in). It also has no conceivable comedy, its merely poorly-performed physical gags by our 2 leads who mumble and stumble thru the entire film which only leads to complete and utter annoyance.

They spend most of the time experimenting with the formula of a cologne touted to be and accidental aphrodisiac. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. All of the time its tedious, boring, and again, annoying. Seriously, skip this one. You're welcome.

I sometimes read reviews and have to ask if we saw the same film. The Return of Count Yorga (which Gory and Orgy can be formed by the letters in the Count's name). The film has a slight essence of Hammer stylings, but then again, not enough. The use of lighting is atrocious and in one long scene it goes back and forth between night and dusk! There are a couple of scenes where Argento later ripped for Susperia.

The character of Tommy, a young boy I assume is mentally handicapped/challenged (or whatever that condition is called these days) plays a significant role in the film but must have been one of the producers relative or someone owes someone a favor (or money) because that kid cannot act AT ALL, like Steven Seagal bad.

There are several notable character actors in this dud, namely Hartley and Craig T Nelson, but there isn't much room for them to stretch with such a stiff script. Not much is explained, of this I am grateful.

There's some decent underscoring music, but thats about it for me.

Yorga is a British-snobby sort of vampire and has a bevy of female draculettes who don baggy tatter clothing, matted hair, drying oatmeal on their faces (I guess to give the impression of necrotic skin) and some seriously awful oversized (think baby walrus) plastic fangs. One of the Igor-esque characters has oatmeal skin too, and come to think of, so does the out-of-place pit of quicksand (quick-meal!). The blood looks like Campbells tomato juice with corn starch to thicken. There's no "bad" language, not that much horror and no real explicit gore, and on that topic, no nudity or even provocative clothing: a rarity in low-budget 70's films of the vampire genre, ESPECIALLY one with an R-rating. Easily PG-13. Zzzz....

Ok, let's cut to the quick. With the graphic of the poster, the name of "Chesty" and with "actresses" Uschi Digart and Joyce Gibson (credited as Joyce Mandel) it certainly would not be much of a stretch to assume there'd be at least a couple of scenes of exposed female body parts. You'd be wrong. One reviewer penned "nudity is kept to a minimum" key word being MINIMUM. Joyce is rear-view nude for about 2 seconds, and about the same time for lovely 70's T&A actress, Rosanne Katon's boobs. That's IT! Particularly strange when you consider all R-rated movies of this genre in the 70' had rampant/gratuitous nudity. This must be the ONLY film Uschi is fully clothed. By today's standards this could easily be PG-13.

The film itself is one big cliche: a senator hires the mob to kill a witness to him having sex in drag, and the US Navy girls are hellbent on solving the case Charlie's Angels style.

However, most surprising of all is the cast: Scatman Crothers (The Shining) Fred Willard (Spinal Tap) and Timothy Carey (Paths of Glory) just to name a few. Carey is the runaway performer, he's hilarious! But in the end, this film overtly bills itself as a sexploitation film, and it's simply not in any regard. What it really is, a snooze fest and a waste of time.

I don't have any real issues with the couple this documentary centers around, they seem like a nice loving couple with healthy self-esteem and discipline, but I am compelled to ask them why?

Why go thru all of the trouble of saving money, prep, and exercise/dieting for this cruise?

At least what is presented to the viewer is a bunch of obnoxious Millennials and Generation-Y-ers who want to drink, do drugs, yell, and dance to loud EDM. Aren't those the same things offered in any dance-club in any given city? And at a fraction of the price? I'm not sure why this is called an "adult" cruise, they serve alcohol and provide dancing on regular cruises. The only difference is, there seems to be a lax policy on drug screening which will only invite/embolden drug dealers to take the cruise. There was an alleged rape that occurred during the filming. While some of the participants may dress in a more revealing fashion, there isn't any nudity allowed. There weren't any orgies or swinger-parties, so I am missing the part where this is an "adult" affair. It seem more to me this is a place where some pampered offspring goes to escape society for a week and are not overly concerned about the costs, as this cruise, considering what is offered and what is NOT, is very expensive.

On its own merit, this isn't a badly made docudrama at all, it does all the necessary things from a technical and substantive view. My rating reflects more about the message( or lack thereof) than the actual film itself. It seems to me, that eventually more and more states will not arrest a woman for exposure in public without any activism, so the real goal is to expedite the timeline of acceptance. I happen to think when its right for society it will be right for society. If it were legal in public NOW, in the states it currently is NOT, I don't see that making any measurable difference. Enabling doesn't always proffer a willingness to engage in something someone was hesitant to do to begin with. Legalizing pot has not increased the number of its users, and those users would not police themselves for reasons of shyness, embarrassment, ridicule, added attention, or fear of being objectified, or sexually harassed or encroached upon, like a woman most-likely would in vacillating over her decision to bare her breasts in public. My point being, net-net, what would change? How many women get arrested for exposure each year? Do they serve time? Isn't it just a misdemeanor? Are the arrests made primarily over the rights of the child being violated? What about public breast feeding? It was unclear to me if this film was really about censorship or about equality, as it doesn't really address the double-standard in published and licensed media. At the time of this review, their website was down, and they have around 75,000 followers on facebook. The bottom line, at least for me, is that its really not much of a cause, even though I agree with it. If its so important to take your top off in public, then simply move to a state where its legal.

Well, we know why. MONEY. Other than that, this was a waste of resources. The hand-drawn version was vastly superior, it had more soul. This version plods along and is poorly paced. The dialogue is sub-standard. The script is simple and slowly delivered. This is strictly a young-child's fare. A lot of people praised the original music score. I was NOT one of them, Elton (sorry, SIR Elton) hasn't done anything of merit since Rock of the Westies. Famous names don't impress me, great scores do, and the underscore sounds phoned in. The lead vocals in the circle of life are horrendous. I didn't hear much sound design or foley, they just used the VI East Meets West Hollywood Choir and Strings libraries to cover things up. Does it look good? Of course its does. It's Disney after all, and Favreau is in full stride theses days. The CGI and art direction are immaculate, top notch. I know the story, but 10 minutes-in, I was bored.

Glad to see Favreau has come into his own, rode it out, and is now getting(hopefully) the control he deserves. This is without a doubt, the best adjunct to the Star Wars I have seen, even eclipsing Rogue One, this is my favorite installment since The Empire Strikes Back. Jon has assembled a great team around his vision and script, and seemingly, Disney has bestowed some autonomy upon him. The Mandalorian pulled me in from the very first scene and has not let go, a true pleasure to watch and absorb, that is in line with the ambience of Episodes 4 & 5, perfectly paced, shot, edited, with great voice over, talent and production values. Music score,IMO, is the only less-than-stellar aspect of the this series so far. Its bet feature is that it does not insult the audience with needless childish gags, or overworked convoluted explanations. This will appeal to kids and adults. I particularly love the re-introduction and acknowledgment of some of the peripheral characters like that annoying pet of Jaba nestled in his tail, now getting roasted while its like-specie's is forced to watch in horror. Other "beings" from A New Hope like Jawas and service droids. This is one of those rare times I actually am eager to see the next episode. At just $6 a month, Disney has offered far more than HBO does at $15. Hmm, who knows, maybe my faith in Disney is restored?

I only checked this series out because my son kept insisting. I don't really like this show,despite its decent cast and above par production values. In 2009, Watchmen , another anti-super hero movie, debuted to mixed reviews. Watchmen was vastly superior to The Boys in every way: vastly more intellectual script, better casting, better directing and production. While it was a bitter pill to swallow to see the dark and cruel side of superheroes, in the end, no matter how perverse or twisted, they still had a positive purpose: to protect mankind, and "get" the bad guys. The Boys abandons those principles with the seemingly single-purpose of eliminating all hope from mankind when we are at the tipping-point of society, economic, and ecology. Superheroes were created in the face of world wars, and patriotism. They were created for those to fantasize and be inspired by those others than the controlling dogmatic principles of organized religion. So what this series is actually saying is there is no trusting or believing in anyone anymore, and IMO, thats far more apocalyptic than any other show or movie I can think of. I don't need the mediums of a movie or TV series to remind me how bleak things are, thats not entertainment, thats news shows. In this "show" everyone lies to each other. Money/greed is the driving force behind the creation of the superheroes. Superheroes casually kill at will, some times with the intent to enact needless pain and suffering, to only callously laugh at their deaths later. But the time we get to the final episode of season-1, the big reveal didn't seem so big to me, it certainly wasn't anything I cared about, because I care nothing about the characters, and the climax was that of a daytime soap opera. Watchmen will be airing this fall as new miniseries on HBO, so now we will have TWO anti-hero shows. It seems a bit contradictory that Hollywood would endorse such a series when Marvel is a major chunk of their revenue for the past decade, its main $ coming from the kiddies. But make no mistake, The Boys is a purely an adult fare. This show is overtly and needlessly mean-spirited and cruel, and its message is so relentless it quickly becomes mind-numbingly boring. Maybe that was their goal all along.

I just started watching this, most likely because I got fed-up with Direct TV after AT&T bought them out, and their service went to crap; all for $240 a month. Thing is, I have had Amazon Prime for years but I had purchased that service only for the buying and selling of goods, and I didn't consider internet streaming as a viable "thing." Clearly, I was wrong. So reluctantly I selected this show, with no bias whatsoever. I was instantly hooked. I fell in love with Brosnahan immediately, along with amazing writers and direction, she has created an amazing character, that is complex, multifaceted, ferocious and beautiful; kind of like Lucille Ball on steroids. An instant icon. The production values are all well represented here, far beyond anything the majors are attempting. Sublime cinematography, very detailed set and wardrobe, marvelous music selections. The cast is very strong, although Im not sold on Lenny Bruce, yet. Some of the reviews state that women didn't talk like this and the scenarios were not plausible. Its a TV show, set in NYC: anything can happen, if you live there you know. Why would I want to watch a story about completely normal life? The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel is about as close to a perfect dramedy series I have seen in the past decade; truly great writing, fast-pace, well edited, freshly stated. and above all entertaining. Don't try to overly intellectualize/analyze this show. just enjoy the abundance of well-developed characters within a great context and narrative, that is given along with the marvelous, Mrs. Maisel.

Watching a totally improvised movie is like listening to bad jazz: a lot of predisposed assuredness that self-importance and self- indulgence are the key ingredients in entertainment. I give it 5-stars because the acting talent is well above par. However, the theater goer is not a lab-rat to be experimented on, unless you want to pay them for attending, yet that is what this film appears to be to me, a test-marketing venture to satisfy a selfish, if not arrogant, agenda. This is one of the rare appearances by Dunham where she didn't disrobe; negative/positive, you decide.

Cute, frail Pamela Sue Martin gained family-friendly fame in the 70's with the hit TV show: The Nancy drew Mysteries. When they merged her show with the Hardy Boys she felt her role was too diminished so she left the series early to leave mega-TV-producer, Glen Larson, a casting hole to fill to complete the series. Never a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you, but you know how Hollywood egos can get. So in 1979 she landed a role as the lead in this little piece of smut-o-rama: The Lady In Red, one can only assume to shake-off the little-bo-peep persona from Nancy Drew, in similar fashion to how Britney, Miley, Christina , et al, did to get more adult roles or pursue more edgier entertainment styles. This film puts Pam thru the ringers: she grows up a poor farm girl, but even then we catch a glimpse of her sociopathic tendencies as she hurls freshly laid eggs onto the mother hens that just laid them (eek!), casually abets Bonnie & Clyde in an armed robbery then gets tossed from a moving car' no big deal. Then painfully loses her virginity; yet no big deal. Of course she learns quickly, if not from her abusive father, that nearly all men are horny misogynists violent pigs, but hey this Hollywood, so its acceptable, just as it is to drop the "N" word often. She then goes on the be an abused sweat-shop worker, a violent inmate, a high priced call girl, and a gangster's GF (Dillinger) near the end of the film. In between are multiple scenes of violence, torture humiliation, murder, rape, sex, and nudity; some full-frontal (with the help of real-life porn stars, notably Kitten Nativitad), nearly unnecessary and totally self-aware. To say the film jumps around a lot would be an insult to kangaroos. It's poorly directed, staged, and edited. Casting snagged several good actors but the script borders on being childish. I had no idea what the real point of the film was, nor how I was to feel about our protagonist. The overall look, from start-to-finish, is that of a low-budget TV series, for it had no theatrical appearance at all. Had it not contained the overt "adult elements", it nearly could have been a TV mini series, with time to explore and explain characters ( and history) more clearly. Oh, well, it got Pam her role as Fallon on Dynasty for the next 4-years. After that, she fell off the map.

Ok, lets keep things in perspective. TV in the 70's and early 80's wasn't very respected or serious, and as such, budgets were limited ( especially when seasons commonly had more than 20 episodes as opposed to the 6-12 episodes modern series have now). Sci-Fi shows have it rough to begin with: they are expensive to produce with futuristic and alien set-designs, costuming , sounds FX, orchestral music ( no synths, MIDI,or DAWS back then) and spacecraft action in outer-space.

Riding on the heels of the popularity of Star Wars, Alien, Logan's Run, Star-Trek ( which had just had its 1st major-motion film release) and Battlestar Galactica, Glen Larson revisited a popular figure from his generation with the fantasy character Buck Rogers.

The first season introduces us to the premise and the characters pretty well, and for the most part it works. The writing is decent enough, the acting fine, and just like Star Trek, there is often great peril and plenty of sexy babes. The main difference is that the danger usually stems from earth, as opposed Trek where the danger is in space itself. Some of the set designs look like they were taken from Galactica, and the way the ships move about and the sound FX are nearly identical.

Erin Gray, easily in the all-time top-5 space hotties, has serious responsibilities and they rarely used her gender in any romantic fare. But thats OK, no one has ever filled-out a pair of spandex slacks better, EVER. I give her kudos and high-marks as she played her character with as much dignity and class as one could. But by the time the 1st-season was winding down, the show became silly and characters got replaced by lesser ones, and even sillier ones introduced.

Second season now has a character with a feather-cap called Hawk. You see, Hawk is part .....hawk, so therefore should be called......hawk. LOL! I guess Larson was handed down a mandate from the network brass that went something like this: "make this more appealing to kids, add a needless 2nd-protagonist, and cut the weekly production budget by 1/3.

The show certainly seems, by all appearances, to have subscribed to that mandate.

Twiki's voice got replaced, Wilma's role was reduced and her outfits looked like something quakers designed. They got rid of Dr. Huer and Dr. Theopolis and replaced them with Jay Garner who has one emotion: angry. Wilfred Hyde White, a British actor who is completely out of place, and wears sweaters the entire time, and a truly lame robot with an overtly gay voice that acts like a know-it-all and is pissy anyone asks it a question. It was a rapid descent downhill after this, and I never saw Gerard or Gray again. Pity. I really liked them.

Let's hope Buck Rogers gets a reboot sometime soon.

As a career musician, I approach any film that chronicles the music industry and/or known act with pre-disposed bias and skepticism. After all, aside from family, I take what I do, what I spend my time and make endless sacrifices for, very seriously, and am instantly insulted when film makers show disrespect to the craft by abandoning basic musical principles and adhering to tired and inaccurate oft used cliches. I have respect for both Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper, its hard to deny before coming to this, they have long-established themselves as very talented individuals. I also have respect for people who are not career musicians attempting to capture the essence of musicians and mimic their mechanics whether it be by singing or playing an instrument. Some film makers wisely stay away from those details when they realize they cant pull them off; Bohemian Rhapsody being a good example, Behind the Candelabra perhaps being another one. I also have to be carefully guarded, right from the start, against any film that shamelessly calls itself "A Star Is Born". Films of this nature easily become self-aware and self-indulgent.These days, the popular music industry isn't what it used to be, nor is the attitude of the average fan. Music has devolved to be free, industrial, mechanical, non-dynamic, and disposable, with a short shelf-life and abated connection between artist and fan. Consumption dollars are primarily towards live entertainment as there is no product except a ticket stub and a T-shirt. This doesn't upset me, not really, rock has been over-valued since the 70's, and everything that needed to be said about that genre has been said many times, to the point where critics, desperate to keep their jobs and hide their envy, consistently try to intellectualize something that is innately stupid. If being a rock star was so special, we certainly have had a lot of them, haven't we? There's a half-a-million more in the wings that merely a flick of the wrist being all that separates them from obscurity and fame. I was wondering at the onset, how much homage they would visit to either of the 2 preceding versions of this story. They wasted no time in making a jab at Bab's nose. Then the film continued its long course of one improbability after another, without realizing it IS those string of improbabilities that ARE/FUEL the cliche, the phantom character of the film. Don't get me wrong, the film resonates priority one, it draws you in. We're already familiar to Coopers work in film, we have high expectations. Lady Gaga's presence is fresh in this medium by comparison (although she was awesome in American Horror Story seasons 5 & 6, so a continuance in film seemed expected and assumed). She's got that natural magnetism that draws you in; you WANT to watch her. What se CANT do yet, as an actor, is hide her pain and vulnerability. This is a woman who trusted someone who deeply hurt her, its in her eyes, the way she walks, meanwhile trying to fool us into thinking she's the girl next door. She's anything but, something you'd think success would have taught her by now, but she still hasn't let her past go, still remains chained to the mast. Sam Elliot delivers a strong performance, and it was great seeing Andrew Dice Clay and Dave Chapelle so removed from their wheelhouse, I have always thought comedic people should always do drama after they got established in comedy. The directing style is a little claustrophobic for my taste, the pacing and dynamics a bit muted too. The film is a little slow and understated. This isn't to say ASIB is a bad film, far from it. There are a huge amount of Cooper/Gaga fans, as well as a huge entertainment-base who will be curious and embrace the film just on general principle alone. For me, its a bit predictable, tidy, and uneccesary.

The Orville has to be the biggest disappointment of any of the returning TV-series. Season-2 starts with soap-operas, focusing on Bortus Episode #5; "All the World is a Birthday Cake", perhaps being the worst. The writing is abysmally awful, the plot full of more holes than cheap swiss cheese. For a comedy, I'm still waiting for the jokes, other than it quickly becoming the butt of one. The show is flat, full of inconsistencies. I do like a couple of the characters, but the show is so self-aware of avoiding other sci-fi cliches, it undermines the credibility. This early in, they have already replaced cast members. The millions being spent on each episode would be better spent on the homeless.

Spike condescends his audience by dumbing-down the narrative in his latest mainstream project. The premise is solid: a burgeoning revolution in the war against racism, and the elevated actions on either side to actualize results. It's not obvious to me if the "true" story wasn't being introduced NOW to show the obvious parallel to Trump, or if it was a docudrama period-piece to be consumed on its own merit. There is some high-quality film making here, especially the camera work, staging and a lot of production techniques. Good editing. The capable ensemble had to contend with a script that is a bit stiff and cliched replete with cartoonish characters. Ron Stallworth and Flip Zimmerman are not very credible. Stallworth, a black rookie cop in a time when black cops were frowned upon within the force, seemingly knows more than the rest of his superiors, and is given command over investigative force mere weeks after being a file clerk. His voice sounds nothing like Zimmermans but apparently it fools everyone, including David Duke who prides himself on detecting black dialect. All of the white characters are written as morons which is typical in Spike films. Granted, I don't have much love for the white characters in this film, but some of them are so far over the top Like Andy Landers and Dr. Kennebrew Beauregard, plus a character who borders on being completely mentally challenged who I can't find on the IMDB cast list. Everything seems to fall into place for our protagonist Stallworth, even the end when Landers gets busted out of the blue and completely out of context, to cross some perverbial-T. It was a loose-end that didn't need to be tied. One bright spot: Harry Belafonte makes an appearance to give a history lesson into the atrocities of the Klan and their acceptance into southern white culture, is disturbing, but again, watered-down and grandstanding. Spike needs to take bigger risks with his film-making and stop worrying that he's going to piss-off the wrong white person who green-lights his films, and just go for it, he's got the chops, he simply needs to get himself dirty. As it stands, he's to neat and pretty.

Ilana Glazer is a true genius, taking nothing away from her partner-in-slime; Abbi Jacobson who is superb in her own rights, Glazer has that X-factor I have not seen in a comic-actor in decades, even more than Fey, McCarthy, Shannon,Wiig, or even Radner. Broad City, a mature comedy that does develop a topic every episode ( with splinter skits), is refreshingly original, edgy, risky, modern, and always hilarious. Very well written, great guest stars, unusual predicaments, and well paced/edited/directed. Very infectious : always leaving me wanting more and eager to see the next show. I hope this has legs and runs for a while, definitely one of those series Im going to get on blu-ray when its over.

This dramedy is about as real as it gets. No pretension, superb cast. Deliberate in its delivery, and nearly always some very poignant message usually ensconced in love, compassion and family. This show wisely avoids Hollywood clichés like Californication and Episodes, so even though the protagonist is a Hollywood actress, they treat her career like anyone else's: no celebrity or entitlements. The love from the mother,Pam Adlin, often very tough at times, is so thick its palpable. She works hard at everything she does and always has her children's best-interest at heart. I have loved every episode, a few made me cry. This show pulls no punches nor truncates itself, the language and topics are often stark and riddled with expletives. This is not a show a child should watch without their parents, but rather be guided through. There is much wisdom here. Ignore the negative reviews, I read them, they failed to get the point of this wonderful show.

I am rating this high merely due to the rare nature of its accuracy. There's still an element of Hollywood cliche's of the record industry included, but the studio scenes and some of the management scenes are compelling. Some of the things are over the top; like Bert Parks singing, and Earth Wind and Fire performing in a roller rink and the staged ghetto-talk by the brothers. Even with some of the bloated soap-opera elements,there still is this aura of docudrama about it. I don't know of a film that portrays the recording/arranging process better. This accuracy may be some or most of its undoing, people often don't acre about the ingredients of the cake they are eating, just the flavor. The "how" it got there is unimportant, only the finished product. Napster being a prime example. So with that, this film may only appeal to Earth Wind and Fire fans as well as those who have a curious nature.

Yes, we all know that Skinemax (and/or the ilk on premium channels) videos have the appeal of a wet ashtray. We all know the sex/breasts are fake. Also off the table is a coherent story-line, acting skills, large cast of players to pool from, original music, etc etc. So I set the DVR to record this and watched a few days later and of course its right-off-the-bat into the fake sex-scene without any explanation, then some pointless dialogue that went absolutely nowhere, and then we have two scenes back-to-back of our lead protagonists who are the bikini avengers (not sure what they are avenging) who seem to spend their time in regular street clothes or spandex unitards and capes, they have a big expensive "bat cave" then depart in the bikini mobile- a Honda. Then its another abrupt sex-scene with the same girl in the 1st but this time its lesbian action with music I swear they lifted from the weather channel. Then its another Avenger scene, alas, still no bikinis another fake sex scene this time with an actress who fakes a Russian accent, back to the avengers bat cave, still no bikinis, with more weather channel music, blah blah blah, back & forth... no bikinis ever. The thing is they changed the title of the move from Bikini Avengers to Bikini Super Heroes, which was an excellent time to change it to Spandex Super Heroes or really what it is : Spandex Boredom Bandits.

There's no bigger fan of A.S. than me. I'll write that again; there's no bigger fan of A.S. than moi! Seven years ago I caught here stand-up routine and was completely impressed, so much so, I boasted to my friends:"keep your eyes out for this one, she's going to be huge". I was right. So when I heard she had merged her skills with the omnipotent Apetow and SNL vet Hader, I was thrilled, especially on the heels of her success with her solo show " Inside Amy Schumer" which IMO is brilliant from top-to-bottom, and has only improved since its debut. Sadly,this is where my admiration pauses, and I do hope its ONLY a pause. It appears that her 1st foray into a tinsel-town backed project was to be guided with a conservative hand, to narrow the margins of Amy's comedic breadth, which as you know, is highly suggestive and sexually charged, as some sort of test to see if she will play ball with the establishment and/or if not, Apetow would be there to pull in the reigns, thats the sense I get of this because even though she is credited as the sole writer, its far too prosaic, conservative for her, and its in the absence of her brand we get cliché'd and perhaps Apetow script(ed) influence. The film starts off closer to Amy's M.O. but as it progresses in run-time, it regresses in edginess and her personality eventually gets lost amongst predictable clichés. Some of the material in the film closely mirrored bits from her erstwhile stand-ups. Amy needs to be Amy. Its as simple as that. The whole package, at least for now, is this innocent cherub-looking blonde who juxtaposes her appearance with dismissively dry explicit sex talk. Good news, is there was a lot of hype and great publicity for her in 2015. Along with the ROI the distributors made with Trainwreck, she will be sitting pretty….for a while.

Just about everything from top to bottom on this latest Starz Original series entry is a tried cliché, and maybe that was the intent but to strip it down and expose the visceral underbelly of the current ballet industry. Of course, there's no accuracy in this at all. We have seen it all before in Flashdance and in Black Swan, but also in more subtle forms like in Fame or even Meatballs. On the plus side, the casting is superb, they must have spent a year gathering this ensemble of actor/dancers who have the energy and talent for such demanding and explicit roles. The production quality is excellent with the editing and directing spot-on. I can live with the cliché's as long as I'm not insulted or bored, and F&B is both compelling and entertaining, totally binge-watchable too. But the writers need to reign-in Claire's nonstop suffering and playing the psychotically-damaged victim. She seems completely unable to experience joy on any level and its getting old, leaving me wanting to smack some sense in her; our protagonist MUST have more dimension other than suffering. The rest is as you may expect: she needs money so she strips, one of the dancers is rich so daddy funds her "hobby", the aging star is evil and a coke-head, the rest of the company is envious and punishing, the company is losing money, the would-be benefactor is a pervert, a hobo is the voice of reason, typical offerings from Hollyweird in the cliché'd world of dance. BTW, ballerinas eat and eat heavily, its MODELS who starve themselves.