Adam's performance was the best I've seen on a television show...
... of an idiot who has absolutely no clue whatsoever on life. How did he get through secondary school? He plays the part of a complete and utter moron, unparalleled since Mr. Bean, with perfection. He makes Ralph Wiggum seem like a genius. He deserves an Emmy. Words cannot describe the complete correct portrayal of someone who failed an IQ test, because he spelt his name wrong and ate all the crayons.
But apart from that its pretty good. Well acted, good pace, nice tension. Interesting twists etc. Worth watching.
Considering this is a low budget film, its not awful. Actors a bit wooden, script isn't perfect, a few plot holes, predictable in parts etc. But good experience I imagine for those involved, and watchable narrative. If same script was delivered by a major production company probably would be a 5/10, but need to give the smaller films some credit.
Cute and with a good message for the 8-13 or so age group.
Unfortunately some genres on imdb get rated lower than they deserve, and children/teen content is one of them. I dare anyone who rates this lower than a 4 to write good content for someone of this target age group. Most negative reviews are reviewed from a critical and authoritarian style adult prejudice. Reviews for tween content need to be written from that perspective and target audience in mind.
And from that perspective this is very good content. The performances from a young cast are impeccable. The story is compelling and interesting. The CGI is believable. It is a bit like Harry Potter in a way, so point off for unoriginality, but it does have a more personalized message about self acceptance and self improvement.
I wouldn't hesitate showing someone of that target audience this film.
There are trekkies which believed that Star Trek was perfect the way it was represented before in TOS and TNG, and there are trekkies who knew that Star Trek needed to change and evolve if it had any hope of reinventing itself for a modern audience.
The ones who believe the former will probably not like this show, but they aren't being realistic. For Star Trek to have a future it needed to change and explore new social issues and ideas. However, the major complaint for many is how far the new material strays off the canon.
Unfortunately Discovery strayed off canon by a large margin in season 1. It was if the show was written by people who had never watched an episode of DS9 or Enterprise, people who didn't know the history, the timelines and the principles of Starfleet. And even the flashy new CGI and decent performances couldn't save it.
This continued into season 2 as well, but by the end of the season 2 something changed.
I don't know whether or not they decided to change up Burnhams character to make her more likeable, whether they decided to move back more into the sciency as opposed to dramatic personal relations or whether or not they started listening to writers who knew their trek history and lore, but things started to gel. It may have been the fact that in a new unexplored time, they could create their own story and build upon the existing worldbuilding, instead of trying to slot into an existing time zone which already had existing lore - especially if they didn't have much knowledge of it in the first place.
But what it has done is eventually they have arrived at a pretty good series. Whilst season 1 and 2 were failed writing experiments, it gave time for the crew to settle into their roles, and by season 3 you can start to become sympathetic to characters which we previously didn't care much about.
There are still issues with canon, but now they are seemingly inconsequential. Hope it continues into season 4 and beyond.
This is one of the best recent adventure films. It avoids many clichés that inhabit the genre, with small twists which made watching it a pleasure.
Even though the action scenes were sort of predictable, it didn't deter away from getting absorbed into Joel's story and caring what happened to him and the other characters. It had some small lessons in it too, which added to the story.
Its a little too adult for young children in my opinion. Young teens though would enjoy it.
When watching a movie like this, its all about the target audience. As an adult this movie was not made for me, but I still got enjoyment out of it. I like to write reviews taking two things into account: Target audience and Genre.
Giving this a 1 just because its not as good as the original is really unfair, especially since most people who are rating are rating upon their own adult bias.
This film is a lot of fun, the plot wasn't cliché and the acting was solid. Based loosely on Dahl's writing, it avoids a lot of the pre-generated story telling that makes the basis of most adventure films for a younger audience that Hollywood keeps squirting out in the past few decades.
The Witches is interesting and gives some good lessons to children about greed, teamwork, acceptance etc. The CGI isn't perfect, and its a little over done. But it is intentional. And whilst Dahl might be turning over in his grave, it doesn't detract away from the fact that for kids, this film is lighthearted, fun and enjoyable.
This show about humanity's hope for survival started strong, with great premise, plot devices and a quick pace. It set the setting early, seemed well acted and thought out. The characters were interesting, and there was early signs that they would develop strongly, and in the end provide with some great science fiction entertainment.
But alas, it was not meant to be. Around episode 5-6, the show started to drift into what I call a drama carousel. Here we have a small human population, as far as they know are the last humans to survive. Their job is to establish themselves in a new environment and re-invigor the human race.
However all the characters are much more interested in what someone said or done many years ago, or what some one else thinks, then of course they argue at each other for usually no real reason, blame each other for what they did. Then onto the next scene of blame, shouting, accusations and assumptions.
And all the characters are stuck in the same pattern, its a tool the writers use to milk the story, but unfortunately its been the death of many a series.
I often say that writer's cannot write character's more intelligent than themselves. These characters, which started to develop early on, were ruined by this pseudo-drama. Even character who supposively have 200 IQ are roped into it. A message to the writers, smart people don't act the way that these characters do. If humanity had to take 1000 people into space to start again, not a single character on this show would have been chosen.
As well as that the mindless and irrational bloodshed escilating episode after episode for no actual reason. Would people in this situation actually resort to this behaviour? Very unlikely! They would be behaving like rabbits to get the human race going again, not finding reasons to kill each other off one by one. But then again it doesn't matter how many extra's die, because the 25 or so in the first episode can be 40 the next or 10 the one after that. Just pick a random number, and thats how many people are there.
Very early into the series I can see the issue with this and why it has so low rating. I can also see why they were trying to compare this to Game of Thrones, but unfortunately its more like the last few seasons.
Already it jumps from scene to scene, doesn't give the viewer time to digest the information. The information and plot is rushed, like its trying to squeeze too much into a small time frame. This doesn't give the actors time to act or doesn't give much to the development of their characters. You cannot empathize with people if there is no character development, you cannot get drawn into the characters if the acting is rushed and rolls through scene after scene at break neck speed. This is a director/producer issue, not a writing, casting or acting problem.
It is trying to create an emotional journey, without taking into account depth.
Style over substance. The sets are very pretty, the CGI, the costumes are perfect, the makeup is phenomenal. And it is the trend with many US shows, so it must be taught at film making school that character depth isn't important as long as people can connect to it emotionally. And I can promise you, that this isn't true.
Quite often these days, I find only some shows I actually stop what i'm doing to watch. With most shows that is my intention, but I find myself wandering off, doing other things, while sort of half-watching them.
But Little Voice has kept me watching. The acting is believable, the story line endearing, and the characters are interesting. Its pacing is well timed, and provides sparks of humour, hope, despair and drama, without turning into the blame carousel which many shows end up being, where the whole show is just people blaming each other for their past mistakes.
My only real complaint, but it is one about US television in general is how unrealistic the songs are. I understand US television likes to show characters who are better than reality, to allow people to escape their own reality. But in doing so it is as the expense of authenticity. The songs on this show are great, and I would love to hear them raw, without being over produced, unless the scene calls for it.
But apart from that this is a little gem of a show, and is highly watchable - at least as of the 7th episode. For lovers of slow roll drama's and music in general.
I usually like shows such as this, Bold Type, Pretty Little Liars, Gossip Girl... all members of a similar genre, a group of friends trying to make inroads into establishing careers/futures and supporting each other through tribulations.
Unfortunately Katy Keene has borrowed some of the worst parts of the genre from Riverdale. It is completely unrealistic. With these kinds of drama's often you need to suspend disbelief a little bit, especially with inter-personal situations. But Katy Keene turns suspending disbelief into a fairy tale, and then tries to pretend that its real.
Conflict emerges, often which is not a real conflict. The decisions and challenges of the characters are not believable, therefore it ruins any sense of connecting with the characters. Even if you start to feel invested in their story, a miracle promotion, opportunity that defies reality or a conversation that sparks the continuance of the plot point as subtle as a sledgehammer, awaits you the next turn. Its a world where problems are trivial or trivialized, everyone gets what they want, nobody learns anything and everyone is as dimwitted as two slices of Bologna.
I tried to get into it, I really did, but after half a dozen episodes it just did not hold to the standard of many other titles with similar premises that have a much better cast, better writers and a more believable narrative.
Its very difficult to do teen-orientated shows well. Inexperienced actors/actresses often either seem wooden or they don't have the experience to get into the depth of the character. Plots often are adapted to suite the needs of the inexperienced cast, which deteriorates from the narrative. This is why Get Even is very good, is because despite it being a teen show, it has none of the above failings.
Not only is it written in a very believable manner, the casting is magnificent. The character interactions are very true to form and seem natural, although sometimes a little cliche. The pace is perfect and keeps you watching.
For this genre, UK television is miles ahead of anything out of the US. This is a teen drama done right, and lots of networks can learn from this.
Hard to review so early in the series, but the target audience is probably teens/young adults. So this review is written with that perspective.
Although the writing and story is a bit on the weak side, the visual effects are stunning, characters are unique, lighting is amazing. It lacks a little world building, and the plot screams along at breakneck pace, which doesn't really give you time to invest in individual characters or the story. Its like Star Wars if Star Wars was a 15 year old teenager with attention deficit disorder.
It will be interesting to see if this falls into the drama-conflict-resolution loop that most teen shows fall into, where everyone just blames each other and shouts at each other the whole show, but the premiere was not like that, but still have some drama. From the interactions in the show, it might fall into that trap later in the season. Often 'writers' write that sort of conflict-loop because they run out of plot ideas and they need to fill in screen time, so lets hope fresh plot ideas keep coming in this series, rather than falling on annoying tropes.
Given the target audience, the difficulty in portraying a science fiction in a realistic manner anyway, I will give it a tentative 8/10 to start, even though its not necessarily my thing. I am going to assume they will develop the world more and add depth to the characters. However, if it ends up just another shallow yell-fest, I will adjust my rating much lower.
Wholesome and Watchable, but not without its flaws.
Fantasy is a really hard genre to get right, such as it is with Science fiction. Yes, having source material makes it easier, but bring that source to life on the screen in a way that is relatable is challenging.
The Letter for the King is one of those fantasy tales. One thing I like about it is how it sometimes subverts expectations, but other times it is completely predictable and cliche. It straddles the line between solid well directed performances, and wooden half-finished scenes that rush from plot point to plot point.
But it is entertaining, especially for those who love fantasy, and that is the whole point of media. Granted, I did not read the book, so I had no expectation of how it would translate to the screen, but never-the-less I was entertained and the characters were likable. It had some elements of comedy, drama, fantasy, mystery all rolled into one.
The target audience is a little on the younger side. It is not a dark gritty tale, but more in the lines of Princess Bride, or at least it tries to be, while maintaining modern film-making techniques.
I doubt this will win any awards, but for lovers of the genre who don't mind a bit of adventure, it is a solid series. 7.5/10
Dev's is a really refreshing look at the mystery genre. Its unique in many ways, and its not cliche like many other IT orientated shows. It does help to have a basic knowledge of the IT industry, similar to Silicon Valley in that way, although its been reduced a little to be more appealing to wider mystery genre audience. The production team on this project really understood coders and IT people, their motivations, their beliefs and their personality, probably better than I have seen any other show do, perhaps equal with Mr Robot. Its done in a similar style as well, tech-like inspired dark and gritty.
Even though its early in the series, you can see that this is of a very high quality. Would recommend it for anyone who likes quality drama, set at a slower pace.
This story revolves around two teens, Violet and Theodore. Its not only addresses mental health, depression, trauma it is also a coming of age story.
Right from the start you can see this is not an ordinary cliche teen romance. The depth of characters shine through from the opening scene. Elle Fanning does an amazing job of displaying someone who is coming to terms with trauma and how it can affect your mental health. And I think we could all use a Theodore (Smith) in our lives sometimes.
The writers really understood teen issues and it is very realistically portrayed, the characters truly representing members of our society. There are people who don't care about the established norm, but are highly intelligent and do care about people. These people are often seen as outcasts, but their authenticity can move mountains.
I really don't understand the low rating. Its not face paced, its not hilariously funny but does have its moments. Its a slow, deep, insightful rumble through the lives of two complex characters. For its genre its a well told story. Teen shows tend to be reviewed harshly on IMDB, even if they are pretty good.
Reviewed for its comparative genre, not out of subjective taste or political disposition, as reviews should be.
Reviewed after 1 episode: I know, I know but I will update it later.
This is a mystery drama, set in the US and follows an ordinary every day person called Peter, until his life is turned upside down by a mysterious place called Elsewhere, ran by Octavio ( Richard E Grant ), and is thrown into a series of events reminiscent of a certain Michael Douglas film.
It is well acted, well produced and has perfect pacing, all the way through. Not only that, if you relate to the characters, it draws you into the mystery.
Others mention it has no plot, but it actually does. The plot is in the lessons throughout, and of personal growth of the characters ( and the viewer ). As for the first episode, its actually a revolutionary concept, as it portrays a certain progression of thought, from insular to open-minded and inclusive. It is the reason why many people 'wont get it', think its 'absolutely nonsense' or 'confused' Its just they don't understand it, and can not grasp a concept of something bigger than their own petty belief structures and biases.
It has no political leaning whatsoever. I keep wondering what television certain reviewers on IMDB want to see when every single show is dubbed 'political' or 'woke' by ill-informed public. Maybe all they want to watch is WW2 re-enactments on repeat or fox news? I don't know.
The first episode itself could have ended the series, it ended perfectly. I couldn't pick a single flaw in the episode, from any vantage point.
This is actually quite an interesting show for its genre. Its quite unique in a way. The best way to describe it as a futuristic dance competition, in a Hunger Games-esque / Divergence style world.
Now the acting is not superb, but its passable. Some weird character decisions ( One character for example has a monologue about not wanting to risk an opportunity then makes an extremely risky decision immediately after).
But if you look at this from the point of view of its genre. Its a teen, science fiction, music genre.
The teen part of this, shows its target audience. Looking at it from the perspective of adult audience, doesn't do it justice. Teen drama's are usually filled with pseudo-drama, the same tripe over and over again, mostly just to fill in the gaping holes in the plot. This is not the case with Utopia Falls. There is drama but its written a little more intelligently than some of its counterparts. There are also some real complex social issues that are presented, which is the cornerstone of shows for this audience. Comparatively with other 'teen' shows, it is very good.
Science Fiction has a lot to do with world building. The world they build is a very class driven society, but in a utopian future. A bit like the divergent series, where each section has its own specialty but some seem more valued than others. In this way, it is not completely unique, but it is believable and fits the plot. It also has some political connotations showing an authoritarian nationalist state.
The music part, is quite interesting. The dancers are talented, choreography was well done. The songs seemed a little derived from modern music, but that's fine.
So if you take the show in its entirely its actually quite good.
Unfortunately most teen shows get treated harshly on IMDB ratings, because they are not reviewed in the context of their audience. Usually reviewed by a bunch of older viewers looking at it from a critical adult point of view. So a message to people over the age of 25+, you might enjoy this show or you might not, but it wasn't made for your target audience.
What happens when you put a few incompetent egotistical idiots in charge of a gaming company?
This is not Silicon Valley. Silicon valley had obscurity, wit and intelligent dialog. Mythic quest has none of these.
There is a trend in US comedies to think that putting a bunch of people with loud voices and strong opinions in one room, constitutes good comedy. It does not. I think it stems from the popularity of Seinfeld, where the plot involves making mountains out of molehills. But unlike Seinfeld, this is not well written.
The characters are unlikable, the solutions unrealistic. Being unrealistic isn't usually such an issue for comedy style's, as long as there is a comedic reason to do so.
For people who like intelligent humour, this isn't it. And this is coming from a long time gamer.
I originally rated this higher, I thought the premise was amazing and it was looking to be a true murder mystery style with some backstory.
So why did I lower my rating?
Now very deep into the first series, elements of pure unreal-ism has crept in. The plot has been manipulated to fit certain characters to continuously show up in the series, rehashing the same lines and plot devices over and over again. The story isn't going anywhere.
While this does not make it unwatchable, it is more episodic in nature, with the larger story arc having little to no consequence. A part from that it is basically a crime/cop show with a bit of a psychological twist. Cast puts in strong performances on the back of some mediocre writing.
Full House/ Fuller house style situational comedy but with a louder laugh track and seemingly worse writers.
Its not as bad as some reviews on here suggest. The thing is with reviewing, is that you should review from the perspective of that particular genre, and how it compares with others of the similar genre... not just whether or not you 'like' it. Reviewing according to personal taste is not objective, and its unfair to the show.
The issue with this style of show such as Indebted, is that it has been done before. Thousands of times. There is nothing really special about it with the exception of seeing Fran Drescher on screen again.
For those who like mindless easy watching shows, maybe get a couple of smiles per episode, then its worth giving it a go. But for those with limited time wanting quality shows and comedy ( of which there is an abundant these days ), then its probably best to skip it.
I really see this being made for the lovers of the musical, not as a stand alone film. My bet is that the majority of people who rated it 1 star, have never seen the stage show.
You can see what Tom Hooper was trying to do, it just didn't come together very well. Don't expect a story, a plot or it to make any much sense.
But if you enjoy dancing, costumes and the soundtrack, then you will get some enjoyment from it. The actors did well with that they had. The CGI is sketchy and artsy, but not without its flaws.
Even as a fan of theatre I had to skip through some bits because it dragged on. Plus I am not a huge fan of the show itself, even originally, although I do see its attraction.
The biggest issue for me is this re-imaging is that there was no emotional connection to it or any of the characters. People call it boring in the other reviews, but why is it boring? Its because it is very difficult to relate to any of the characters, they don't seem sympathetic. There is no emotional investment But that is a part of the stage play as well.
It just needs to viewed as a performance and not a story, and that's where I believe the majority of negative reviews are coming from.
So many reviews on here saying this is fantasy. After watching 14 episodes it's one of my favorite law shows on television and here is why.
It shows how complicated some cases can be. Its not all cut and dry. There is nuance layering on nuance. It shows how background, environment, genes and other factors can influence criminal decision making. This show shows that cases can be in danger of being influenced by politics, by money, by racism, harassment, threats etc. And in spite of all of this the judges are trying to do the right thing, and even then they sometimes get it wrong.
Tell me what is fantasy about that?
It also shows what a legal system can be. It shows that sometimes there are other alternative solutions to issues. Because what exactly is a judicial system?
A judicial system is there to protect society and reform the criminals to the best of its ability. Its not there to perform vendetta's for the victims. If you look at the statistics world wide, the US has the highest incarceration rate and repeat offender rate. So it must be doing something wrong. This show displays angles of empathy and understanding which if taken on board by a judicial system, may alleviate some of those statistics. Its a show of possibilities.
The acting is average, the cases are interesting, cast and production are fine. Its definitely not the best show on television but doesn't pretend to be.
I reviewed this earlier and decided to change my review.
It is improving, a lot. Its basically a throw back to farce, but so intelligently written. The highlight is its prose, it is extremely unique and very witty, on the back of some truly ludicrous characters.
So why the low rating?
People who are used to American humour may not get it. It is not out and out funny in a silicon valley style way. The humour is in its subtlety. I can see why Hugh Laurie jumped on this, and the cast does an amazing job.
This will be a cult classic eventually. It may get cancelled after one or two series, but it brings something to the genre which very few shows do these days... creative brilliance.