asleep_soon

I gave this a try because I liked the movie with Hugh Grant, many years ago, and I LOVED Brandon Mychal Smith on "You're the Worst." (I will still attempt to watch anything he's in.)

I couldn't get past the first episode because, even though I enjoy the occasional rom-com, I'm not the Hallmark movie type. I write fiction for a living, and realize, "it's just fiction," so I try to go with the story, but I just couldn't with this one. I thought about elaborating with a review that contains spoilers, but I'll just leave it at, "if you like unrealistic Hallmark movies that make no sense, this is the show for you."

I had much higher hopes for this show, but each episode has left me disappointed. In short, they've all fallen flat. There's no substance. Although I love Alicia Silverstone, I'm not rooting for her character, because she isn't likable.

It feels like each episode was written by someone who's out of touch with what it means to be an "American Woman." This is a woman of privilege. If she can't afford the mortgage on her mansion, how 'bout moving to a cheaper house? Otherwise, why are we supposed to empathize? Most American women will never relate to this.

Also, is it just me, or is Alicia Silverstone's delivery too pedantic and slow? Has she always spoken this way, or is it supposed to reflect the character's background?

I can't recommend this show, which is sad because I love all of these actors. I hope to see them all again, somewhere else.

I know I'm in the minority, but I was never a big fan of Kristen Wiig's characters on SNL. I enjoyed their quirky uniqueness, but her humor never made me laugh out loud or anything, especially the "hot girl who farts." I just didn't get it.

But this movie has me wanting more Kristen Wiig. She was dead-on as the offbeat Alice, who is the epitome of borderline personality disorder.

I found this movie on Netflix and gave it a chance when I saw it was a dark comedy about a crazy person who does crazy things.

The dialogue was hilarious, as were the reactions of the rest of the characters, particularly the behind-the-scenes crew who produced Alice's "Welcome to Me."

I adore the witty randomness of the dialogue. My favorite line of the movie was when Alice told a story from her past, "He told me, 'That's just how we do things in Gaithersburg, Maryland.'"

This premise could've easily been over-the-top and irreverent, but it's brought down to a realistic level by excellent acting, and also by characters who are as real as Alice was, to me. (If you've never known anyone who's borderline to this extent, consider yourself fortunate - it's far more entertaining to watch a fictional story about it than to experience it in real life.)

For example, Wes Bentley's Gabe, who's a little off-the-beam himself, admitting that he falls too deeply in love, and subsequently, gets involved with her. The Alices of the world always have their groupies.

Again, the behind-the-scenes crew, including Joan Cusack, James Marsden, and Jennifer Jason Leigh, all react exactly the way most of us would to Alice's behavior. I adored their performances.

This is one of those movies that I will watch again when I really need something to pick me up and make me laugh, even though it's not a "feel good" story. I didn't find Alice annoying, but lovable. However, I know well enough to run in the opposite direction when encountering one like her in person.

Crazy lady wins the lottery and pays to produce a vanity show about herself. Love, love, loved it.

I base my star rating on the fact that I've watched each episode at least five times. I'm so grateful for Hulu!

I can't remember the last time any TV show made me laugh out loud like this one. When I can't find anything to watch (which happens often) I go to Hulu and automatically turn on an episode of Teachers.

The writing is witty and original. Sometimes, the jokes come so fast that I don't catch them until I watch it again, because I was laughing too hard the first time.

Each actor plays a defined, well-rounded character without being a caricature.

My favorite episodes: Hall of Shame, Drunk Kiss, Hot Lunch, Bad Tweeter

My favorite line (makes more sense if you know how true it is to each character): (Regarding Miss Snap auditioning for "The Bachelor")

Miss Watson: "The Bachelor" is the one reality show I'd actually go on... if I had a more flattering cry face.

Ms. Adler, completely serious: I feel the same way about "Steven Seagal: Lawman."

My favorite character: Miss Feldman

Although, I find each character to be hilarious.

I had never heard of The Katydids before, but I will now watch anything they do.

I only watched Magic Mike after I found it on demand. I thought I would probably watch it for five minutes, then get bored and turn it off.

But the story hooked me immediately. I especially enjoyed that we got a realistic view of a male stripper, behind the scenes.

I haven't watched the sequel because reviews tell me there is a greater focus on stripping. I guess the negative criticism from the first movie was an influence on the second movie, and I wish it hadn't been.

Magic Mike is one of the best independent movies I've seen in a long time. I found it engaging, and I sympathized with the characters. I hate that it was marketed as sexy movie about male strippers, because it drew the wrong audience. This movie was so much more than that.

I almost didn't watch Another Period because I do not care for Natasha Leggero's humor (it's too catty and mean for me). But I find her character, Lilian, to be so hilarious and intriguing that I think I may now be a fan.

I've watched the first four episodes of Another Period more than once and I laugh out loud each time. My favorite so far has been episode four, "Pageant," simply because of how hard I laughed.

I'm a big fan of many shows on Comedy Central, but this one stands out for me. Not only is the humor historically accurate, but it's dark. It reminds me of how I laughed at Django Unchained for its portrayal of the pre-Civil War south. There are many moments in Another Period when I think, "That shouldn't be funny, but it is," as I laugh way too hard at the blatant, over-the-top classism, racism, and sexism that was prevalent at the time. In our PC culture, it's refreshing to finally see a show like this one. I hope we see many more; they're necessary. It's good to be reminded of where you came from. And it's even better that we can now find the humor in it.

I laugh at this show from start to finish, then I watch it again because I missed so much while I was busy laughing the first time. There's a whole lot of story and character development packed into each episode. I find myself paying close attention and being rewarded for it. That says a lot about a show. I find the writing witty, consistent, detailed, and intelligent.

The acting is excellent and the characters become more complex as the episodes continue. I'm so interested in some of these characters that I feel like I could watch a spin-off about each of them and never get bored.

I appreciate that the humor hasn't been too "gross out" as of yet. I don't know if anyone involved with the show will ever see this, but on the off chance they do, I have a request: please don't get grosser. Episode four had a few scenes involving buckets that went right up to the "eww!" line for me but didn't make me recoil in disgust.

I've said here that the writing is historically accurate, but I'm no historian so I don't know how accurate it actually is. I haven't seen anything that I would consider to be inaccurate, though. I already knew about the "rule of thumb," which was mentioned in one of the episodes, so my hunch is that much of it is grounded in truth.

*added later, regarding historical accuracy*

I've read several interviews with the show's creators (and stars) Riki Lindhome and Natasha Leggero. I hate that this is one of those shows that make a person think, "that's silly, none of this really happened, these plots are too ridiculous to be true" - if you think that, you are wrong.

The show's creators took tours of mansions in Newport, RI (I now want to go there and take those tours) and used some of their real, ridiculous history in the writing of this show. So far, it takes place in 1902 (during "the Gilded Age," as Mark Twain called it) when the vast majority of America's wealth was concentrated in Newport, RI There was no income tax and no business regulation. Rich people did whatever they felt like doing, and poor European immigrants were still headed to the U.S. by the thousands, resulting in outrageous class disparity between the wealthy and the poor working class.

I hate that some call this a Downton Abbey spoof. I love both Downton Abbey and Another Period for different reasons, and that description would not have enticed me to watch. The Lords and Ladies of the post-Edwardian era in England were not like the nouveau riche on the other side of the pond.

By the early 1900s, some of these American families had only been wealthy for a generation or two. These families were eccentric, with no limits, behaving how they assumed "royalty" would behave.

For example, on Downton Abbey, servants are treated with respect, kindness, and human decency. On Another Period, servants are treated like furniture, cattle, or worse, because these Americans had way too much new money -- which naturally accompanied increased industrialization -- and no "proper" examples of how to use it.

I see this show described as "Downton Abbey meets the Kardashians," but that would've turned me off, because I've never watched more than five minutes of the Kardashians, and also because I think Downton has enough naturally occurring humor. Why would I need to watch a silly spoof of it?

Another Period is not a Downton Abbey spoof. It's an original comedy that's rooted in some lesser known (and arguably shameful) American history.

This movie would have been way more interesting if it had focused more on the magicians, and not the Mark Ruffalo character. He simply was not as interesting as the rest of the cast. It seems like a squandered opportunity, with Isla Fisher and Woody Harrelson co-starring, among others.

If you're a Mark Ruffalo fan, I think you'll really love this movie and you won't be sitting there waiting for someone else to come on screen. It's not that I dislike him, I just thought that his character wasn't as interesting as some of the others.

I think I'm probably in the minority. I watched it with someone who enjoyed it very much.

Maybe I'm the exception, but having dealt with every one of these personality types in writer groups, I found this movie to be hilarious and therapeutic.

This movie is exactly why I don't tell my friends what I write. "If she can do it, I can do it."

Then put in the work and prove it, jackass.

I have watched this movie twice already, on Netflix, and I will be buying a copy to watch on days when I need to be reminded to ignore the professional jealousy of those around me. Trust me, it's just not worth telling people what you write. Pen names are the way to go.

These are the characters, as I saw them, and as I know them to be in person:

1. One woman is a dim-witted, spoiled narcissist who barely makes time to write, yet she tells everyone she's a "writer." She looks at pictures of herself while she does yoga, to get inspired.

2. Her husband, who doesn't actually write, but keeps a tape recorder handy so he can record his "brilliant" ideas, which are usually just character names that he finds clever, or half-baked plots. In other words, he's not a writer. The "idea" doesn't write the story, and is absolutely worthless unless you're fleshing it out in the book, and he is not.

3. A sweet guy who loves classic literature, like The Great Gatsby, and takes his own writing very seriously. He submits manuscripts to publishers and agents, and keeps all of his rejection letters on his wall. He admits at the beginning of the movie that he hasn't written in two weeks.

4. A narcissistic war veteran who idolizes Tom Clancy and thinks his manuscript is good enough to become a movie. Also, he holds a self-published book signing at a hardware store. (I know someone who threw her own self-published book signing at an IHOP.)

5. A guy who's in love with being a writer. It gives him an identity. But he's only written three pages of what he calls a manuscript, and instead of writing the rest of that book, he just revises those three pages again.

6. The girl who makes writing a priority, but hasn't read any of the classics, and hasn't gone to college. But she's the one who lands an agent, a book deal, and a movie deal. I've seen the movie twice and I'm fairly certain that she's the only character who doesn't trash anyone else's writing.

I understand why people who haven't belonged to a writers' group may find the movie boring, but it was the only piece of fiction I've ever seen that captured the delusional narcissism of a writers' group.

As soon as one person in the group gets successful, the claws come out. "She doesn't deserve it." "It's because she looks good in a miniskirt." ""I'm the better writer, it's not fair."

She also put in work, and put her writing first. It doesn't matter who you've read or what you've studied. If you don't finish your manuscript, you will not be successful.

I hate to say that writers are this unlikable in person, but we are.

I revised my review to say this -- I am both traditionally published, AND self-published. I read other reviews that thought the movie took digs at self-publishing, but I didn't see it that way. There ARE people just like John K. Butzin, who don't know how self-publishing really works, and get scammed as a result. His goal isn't to make a living with his book, but to see it on the big screen someday, and to "get published." His character was the funniest and most realistic, to me. Although, on some level, it's incredibly sad, because guys like him actually exist. I watched this movie with a writer friend and Dennis Farina said many things that made us look at each other and mention names of people we knew. Again, it's actually sad, but it felt so good to laugh.

Ten bright, glowing stars from me.

I can't blame the History Channel for trying to drag this out for at least a season. A series will certainly bring in more money than a documentary.

But for any series to be successful, there has to be substance.

On the episode I just watched (number three, I believe?) the whole hour was about finding coconut fiber on the island. At the end of the show, they received information about how old the fiber was.

That was it. That's what happened on this week's episode. Really? An hour for that? Most of the allotted time was filled with dramatic music punctuating events that weren't dramatic, and the narrator repeatedly reminding us of possible theories of the island.

I really don't mean this review as a dig against the people on the show. I think they're sincere and they probably have no control over what the network deems the final edit.

At this pace, this show has no hope. I hate to admit I find myself continuing to watch, hoping for something big. What my hour amounts to is about ninety seconds of watchable television while I fight the urge to fast forward through more than the commercials. I had high hopes for this "real life" mystery show, but after this week, I'm out.

I've thought about starting a drinking game to play as I watch but I'm not sure I'd want to get that drunk. A drink every time they show the graphic of the booby-trapped pit, a drink every time the narrator mentions the Knights Templar or other theories, a drink every time there's a dramatic setup for absolutely nothing, a drink for every time the guys are sitting around the table drinking. Unfortunately, this show isn't worth the hangover.

I will gladly read the episode summaries after the series is over. And if there's a nice, condensed documentary, that's even better.

This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. It had everything I love in a movie (or book, or TV show, etc.) - family drama with dysfunctional relatives, secrets, characters that come to life on screen. Also, the story is dark, but not as dark as I expected from the little I'd read online. I haven't seen the play on which this movie is based and I read no spoilers before attending the movie.

If you enjoy movies that are literary in nature (not genre based) you may enjoy this one. There's no clear resolution, no happy ending. It's like spending a few days with people who are alarmingly real and flawed. If that kind of story makes you sad, don't watch it. I found it rather therapeutic, and not nearly as painful as a few days with my actual relatives.

I would put this movie in the drama category, if forced to pick a genre. There were many laugh out loud moments (to me, at least) but I definitely would NOT call this a comedy, or even a dark comedy. I can see how maybe the play is more of a comedy, but the movie definitely is not.

The acting was phenomenal, as you would expect from a cast like this. I could gush about any of them. I'm still laughing about Dermot Mulroney. He reminded me of the character he played in About Schmidt. Benedict Cumberbatch's role as perpetual disappointment Little Charles was a revelation as well. I already knew he was amazing but this was something I didn't expect from him.

Any movie where I come away thinking of the minor characters as much as the main characters is a fantastic movie, in my opinion.

I don't need a happy movie. Not a romantic comedy person here. I love movies that make me think, feel, reminisce, reflect. I want to feel a full array of emotions during a movie. This movie gave me that. I wish there were more like it. Sadly, I doubt most moviegoers will understand the brilliance of August: Osage County.