Reviews

I've certainly seen worse movies. Let me start with the good. While not terribly innovative, by today's megabucks standards, the effects were certainly a spectacle. So I give it an odd for eye candy, in that regard. Same for the action; although it's getting to be a bit cookie-cutter for Marvel movies, these days. No "wow" factor.

For the not-so-good... this movie definitely seemed more aimed at kids than the vast majority of Marvel movies. Especially when compared to the classic modern Marvels, such as Captain America: Original Avenger, or the original Thor. The characters were more than a little thin. There was a certain character epiphany which came far too easily, without substance, or ability to empathize with the character (if you see the movie, you'll know which one I'm talking about). No real character development, or substance. The villain was stereotypical, with uninspired motivations. Only one "hook" made it interesting (but that will require other movies to explore)

Let's not even get into the potential plot holes or pseudoscience.

All in all, it's OK for a pastime movie to shut your brain off for a bit, and to know you've seen all the main Marvel installments. But it's less intellectual than other Marvel fare. And yes - I know what I'm writing. LOL...

Bottom line, in my view, this could go either way.

They threw in a few decent elements, such as the connection with the original (instead of rebooting it, or dismissing it, entirely), a couple decent actors, and the potential of a mystery or Sam even being seen.

Where it falls down is that those decent elements didn't mix. I'm not sure if it's just a bit undercooked, still, and needs to simmer, or if it will come together in other episodes, but for the pilot, it's not there.

I have a problem with the "guide" / hologram being a romantic entanglement. For one, with that kind of emotional liability, it's unrealistic. Oh, sure, a show like this can leave "real" behind, but only if there's a payoff for having done so. This has the feel of just throwing it in there for the sake of drama. And made worse by the fact I felt NO chemistry between these two.

Speaking of the hologram - they have Ernie Hudson in the cast, and he's not it??? He's sidelined? Come on! He would have been far superior to Ms-no-chemistry,

Lee as Ben is passable. He's no Bakula, and seems a bit young-ish for the role, but he's better than feared.

The first story was a bit banal, and they didn't launch us into this new world very well. I am not confident in the writing.

For now, I'll wait and see where this goes. The big payoffs would be IF we happen to get Sam in one or more of the episodes, and whatever mysteries might unfold. Time will tell. Pun intended.

It's interesting to consider films like this, and contrast with films which might be considered similar, in ways, like The Abyss.

Abyss might have been as dumb and cringeworthy as Moonfall, had it been executed as poorly. The basic concepts were similar, in some ways (which I won't get into here). But while Abyss made us marvel, Moonfall made me roll my eyes.

I can only guess the central concept was pitched by someone else, then Emmerich got a hold of it, ran with it, and ultimately destroyed it, in script and execution.

There were any number of stupid aspects to this film, from the technology, to some of the human decisions. In a human sense, it was banal, at best. Stereotyped and 2D. From a technical standpoint... hoo, boy. Can't even begin to get into them all! It looks like Emmerich Googled a couple scientific terms and concepts of a Moon approaching Earth... then neglected everything else. Not the least of which, Shuttles don't just launch on demand, without support, and other vehicles are not sports cars. Don't even get me started on what would happen to Earth in all this. It was portrayed as bad, but would be far worse, especially from a social standpoint.

But how many points to award it? As for script and execution, it's a 1-star. It gets points for being competently filmed, with some reasonable effects (but not outstanding for a big-budget 2020's film). But sheer stupidity has to take away. So I'm left awarding it 2/10. Not the very worst I've ever seen, but one of the worst in terms of ruined potential and shoddy execution. If you hate stupid - avoid this.

I guess if you don't really like plots, meaningful dialogue, or character development with your screaming and running away, this might be for you.

This is a movie which smacks of trying to be fresh and innovative, but really it drops the ball. Nothing against the "found footage" device. That could potentially be great. Yet this just doesn't work. There's not enough there. They throw out a scenario before the action begins, just to try to get you to care a little about the characters (which doesn't really work), then it's all non-dialogue, non-plot from there on out.

The acting comes across as horrible, but I'm guessing it's not so much the fault of the actors; I am guessing they're being directed to act that way, to try to come off more like goofy young people supposedly would in a free-for-all scarefest.

Some of the scenes were shamelessly ripped off from Blair Witch. They didn't even try to hide it.

If you don't watch it, you're not missing much. I gave it an extra star just for the attempt at something non-standard, and one more star just because of the occasional effect.

I seriously have to wonder if being a modern teen would have helped.

Don't get me wrong - I can still enjoy re-watching The Breakfast Club, Stand by Me, Donnie Darko, Ferris Bueller, and many others! It's possible to write characters who are teens, seeing the world through pubescent perspectives, and still draw in both adults and current teens.

The pilot of this show didn't do that.

It seemed too caught up in the banal trappings of teen life, from posting fan-kid videos, to not being able to go out to a beloved event because of repressive parents. These are, in themselves, largely banal tropes. A story needs to add something NEW to the mix. This show reminded me of my concerns with the way Turning Red began. However, there were some rich and unique aspects to that environment which left me hanging in, plus some comedic aspects to the overbearing mom archetypical character. Yet that movie quickly moved into some new territory and became interesting, despite being very teen-centric. Plus it dared touch on themes often taboo for family flicks.

I'll hold out hope that future episodes of Ms. Marvel will become more engaging, but I'm disappointed this pilot episode spent so much time in banality.

Not to say it wasn't without charms. I liked some of the animated art a la augmented reality. Problem is - it didn't connect enough with the character. We're meant to think it is a product of the main character's imagination, since they seemed to circulate around her, but this was more inference than portrayal. In some scenes, it was difficult to determine if she was highly creative and artistic, or whether she was ADD, or just a product of the short-attention-span cell phone generation. I'll add they made the dad potentially the most interesting character, with a couple attempts at humor and humanity. We'll have to see.

I also liked the main actress. She seemed personable, and maybe if she's given more to work with, she can shine.

All in all, there are so many ways to tell a teen-centric story which make it interesting. I was disappointed with the pilot, but will hold out hope it can grow and improve. But maybe it lost its potential in playing to the average teen?

When I say "for kids," I don't mean a Casper-ish childlike romp / fantasy story. I might not have minded that so much. It was closer to being the original Ghostbusters, ground down and repurposed to capitalize on the nostalgia to lure parents in to taking their kids, but catered to kids, themselves.

It didn't have the pure fun, the comedy, or the lightheartedness of a true "kid flick," the likes of which adults might have enjoyed along with their brood. Rather, it had a lot of "young people" archetypes, including the oddly-oblivious single mom, the brooding, moody teenage boy, and the obligatory gender-neutral central figure.

The kids were in the central roles of this story, which made it seem that much more unrealistic for adults. Yes, I know - it's Ghostbusters, it's not supposed to be "realistic." But that doesn't mean just tossing away random bits of sensibility for that sake. If you want the kids to pick up strange pieces of esoteric equipment and have them wield them like experts - there needs to be a point, even if that is one of farce or satire. This film just didn't have it.

As a lover of the original, I felt it was just a cash-grab using sentiment for the original to lure in my generation. Sure, there were a couple moments of worthy sentiment, but they were merely gratuitous, too few, too late, to save the movie as a whole.

Not the worst movie I've seen, especially for a remake, but it's far from great. I wanted better.

Once again, we see why older franchises need to be left alone, most of the time. "Revolutions" and "Reloaded" didn't have the magic of the original. Yet they were watchable. They rounded out a trilogy which should have ended there.

This installment lacked nearly all qualities which made the Matrix a fascinating film. Oh, sure, they took some stabs at the themes... but stabs don't necessarily mean inspired execution. The story, the "feel," the world-building, the acting - all were sub-par. Was Keanu just not invested in it? Or was this version neutering him? I didn't see him as "The One," either coming to be, at the top of his game, or making a comeback.

The world just didn't make sense, for too many reasons I won't get into here. It coasted on the inertia of its predecessors, but offered little to nothing new of its own.

The music and directing didn't thrill me.

Truly tragic are that they didn't even manage to bring back Weaving. (And Smith's role in this installment didn't even add up). Or Fishburne.

I guess the only things which were decent quality were the effects. But even they were hardly the revolutionary spectacle of the original. They were run of the mill for today's motion picture. I'd take a Marvel film any day for those.

OK - and a few scenes in the first half hour, where the film poked fun at itself. And the post-credits scene was worth a laugh. Sad when the sidebar humor is better than the main part of the movie...

My score is marked down for the lack of what it could have, and should have been. But it only gets the score it does, for being a decent FX film of the day. Story-wise, I'd give it a 2.

All in all, I'd say this was a pretty obvious cash grab by the studio. As a far of the originals, I'm glad I saw it for curiosity. But I wouldn't have been missing anything if I skipped it.

I have a hard time assessing this from the lens of a teen. Being... well... somewhat past my teenage years, I can't presume to speak for the predominant mindset and culture of that demographic. I can only speak for myself... and I will.

To me, this show was seriously lacking in depth, complexity, intelligence, sensibility --- even redeemable action or superficial excitement (or fun). Not only is the plot centered around a bunch of teens, but they seem to think like teens, and make stupid typical teen mistakes. The problem is, in TWD universe -- they'd be DEAD. There was nothing uncanny about them, their skills, or their situation which made it seem plausible.

Now, I've seen show aimed at teens or kids, which I truly enjoyed. Either they were more deeply layered, or had fun/excitement/action, or were just plain funny enough, to be enjoyable. I don't see those redeeming complexities, here.

I actually wanted to enjoy this. I gave it a shot -- but I just can't. Some shows, I might say "it's not for me, but give it a shot, maybe it's more your cup of tea." But not this one. UNLESS, of course, you are in that youthful demographic. Maybe the perception of the modern young person is different enough to like this. After all, someone makes Kardashians and other reality shows popular. But if you're at all like me -- you'll wish you'd just passed it by.

I like this version. It's based off of Sagan's original material, so it's intelligent and informative. As we might expect, it's good to see the updates in visual technology, especially with images from the Hubble and the wonderful CGI we now have. Oh, what Sagan could have done if he'd had access to such images, CGI and HD! Given these advancements, it's nice to see Cosmos brought to this modern generation. One, so that a new generation can enjoy this material. Two, the original, while a masterpiece, was getting a bit "dated".

Alas, though, as we might also expect, the modern version doesn't capture the magic of the original. Tyson is a good host, knowledgeable, pleasant and well-spoken, but he doesn't have the voice or poetic wonder of Sagan. Sagan's voice made science sound like poetry. I was gripped by his treatment of the subject as a young teen. I only wish we could have brought that level of passion to the new generation.

Another aspect where Cosmos 2014 is not Cosmos 1980, is the music. The music of the original was some of the best ever compiled for a documentary. From classical to synth, it was unique and captivating. I remember scouring record shops for the soundtrack on vinyl, until, at last, I found "The Music of Cosmos" as an LP! That music inspired me for years to come. The new version's music is acceptable, but not inspiring. It's more like stock music soundtrack used on any Discovery Channel special.

Had I not had the original to compare this version to, I would have no complaints with Tyson or the music. They only fall short when compared to a legendary series, but are fine in and of themselves. As I stated earlier, I do hope a new generation watches, enjoys and is inspired by Cosmos.

It's worth watching. If you love astronomy or cosmology, you certainly won't be bored.

Let's start off with saying I really liked IM-1. It was one of the better superhero movies I've ever seen. This is a sentiment shared by most of my friends.

IM3? Let's say it was enjoyable enough to watch as an action flick. However, it failed to impress me in any of the ways I would hope a major feature film would. For instance, the story. OK, granted, not all movies, especially action movies, have to have a great, let alone deep, storyline and script with sensational dialogue. It all depends what they are TRYING to be. That's where IM3 fell short, to me. It seemed like it was trying to seem deeper and more intelligent than it was.

Let's make that clear, right now. No matter how much you may have enjoyed this film, it's neither "deep" nor "intelligent". Any thrills derived are more along the lines of action and shallow motifs.

IM3 seemed to give us a number of elements just for the sake of handing them to us. The most infamous of these, what they did with The Mandarin. I won't get into that, here, in this review. But let's say the "twist" was more a twist for the sake of the twist. It was not innovative or clever. They could easily have pulled off the same plot device with any other number of names or new characters. Instead, by dropping the name The Mandarin, they slapped the faces of everyone who were familiar with this character from the comic book and wanted to see him brought to life.

Another cheap-trick element was Tony's emotional issue (again, not discussed here). You can't just drop something like that in to a character like Stark without working it in, with purpose. Otherwise it seems random and just "thrown in for the heck of it".

I'll also mention the ending, which left us wondering "why DID he do that?" Just for the sake of a few pyrotechnics and a feeling of "starting fresh". Sorry, sometimes a theme needs to make sense.

That leaves us with is not bad. Not great, though, since the Extremis characters were just a bit too over-powered (and not consistently, I might add) and a far different battle than what I might have hoped for. RDJ, of course, is masterful as Tony Stark, and he was the best part of the movie. I just wish Stark, who is one of the more interesting characters in the Marvel movie franchise, was better-used in this installment.

It's interesting to note that, while there were minimal moments of pure dialogue, they seemed slow and to drag. This is indicative of the quality of the writing and characterization, since I usually love moments of meaningful dialogue, even in an action movie. I guess this wasn't all that "meaningful". Hmm.

I leave you with the notion that if you want to just see an action film, you may, indeed, enjoy it quite a bit. Just don't set your expectations too high. Take all the elements with a grain of salt. They seem to be geared towards a more juvenile audience than the average comic book reader (yes, I meant that as it sounded).

IM3 has its moments, and is worth a view, but it's far from great, if you hope for any meat with your cheese.

I find this new brand of sitcom, a la Whitney, to be most unimpressive.

No matter what you think of these botoxed femmes, in terms of their stand-up routines, this scripted pap doesn't translate well.

In short, the jokes are nothing we haven't heard too many times, before. It appears the writers have supplanted genuine cleverness, humor and wit, with trying to "shock" people, by pushing the boundaries of decency.

Don't get me wrong; some of the best comedy in history has pushed the boundaries of social ideals of "decency", in the past. HOWEVER – those comedies did so with a purpose. They often challenged our sensibilities and old ways of thinking with unique, clever or thoughtful ways. Conversely, shows like Whitney and Chelsea seem to just try to make the audience say "I can't believe she said that" in social realms, which are already loose and maybe a bit crass. Crass is no substitute for clever.

Anti-intellectualism is taking hold in shows like this.

...and this was no exception.

Despite the fact it was claimed it was "filmed in front of a live audience", I no more feel this laughter was genuine, from the heart, than the impersonal machines which usually are the hallmark of a poorly-written crapfest comedy.

Since it was Whitney Cummings, I thought I'd give it a chance. Despite being a bit "cheap / crude", she seemed to have some wit in some of her routines. Sadly, no such wit was present in this brainless comedy.

This is not "amusing in a low-brow sense like Larry the Cable Guy or Jeff Foxworthy" comedy. It's just pointless, without anything unique or clever. This is just the same brain-dead sitcom we've seen before a zillion times, with a zillion different names.

I gave it a shot. It didn't cut it.

Nothing new here, folks.

As I begin, I have to find it amusing that the reviews are split between overly generous (after all, even people who found this a "guilty pleasure" could not justify giving this a 9 or 10 rating) and those who consider it "terrible". That always says something about a show. Especially when favorable reviews get an inordinate number of "useful" votes and the unfavorable reviews get an inordinate number of "not useful" votes. All this, despite the discussion boards reflecting mostly negative opinions.

I pose it to those reading such reviews to consider, who is likely to be giving these glowingly favorable reviews and marking views of contrary positions down so? Think about it.

That being said, Bob's Burgers is remarkable. Remarkable for the fact that it's one of the worst shows I've ever seen to be aired in a prime time slot. Also remarkable for the lack of even the most remedial value.

The voices were terrible, the themes superficial and sophomoric, the humor very "Jr High", the animation was neither "loose" in an artistic sense nor refined. It was just - BAD.

I do not like to come across as ripping on a show just because it's not my personal cup of tea. I at least like to look for the positives in a show, or recognize for whom it might be enjoyable (e.g. children). This show is truly remarkable in the sense I found almost no remedial positive values in it, nor could I envision a demographic for whom this would be truly enjoyable. Mediocre, even in the most unrefined of circles.

I gave it a fair chance, tried to keep an open mind, but whatever scraps of humor may have been contained within were overshadowed by the overt repulsiveness of the overall show.

Like many, I saw the ads during the Olympics. I also saw Seinfeld was attached to it, which, IMHO, gave me hope. So I decided to tune in. I thought I would like it, at least a little. A "guilty pleasure", if nothing else. It seemed a concept which had potential.

When I heard the cacophonous canned laughter which roared at every line, I felt myself tense up a little. Usually, the louder the canned laughter, the weaker the material. As I heard the script, the knot in my stomach only got worse.

The lines were insincere and contrived. The humor and jokes hackneyed. The situations unbelievable and ridiculous.

I honestly don't know what Jerry Seinfeld was thinking. While he contributed a scant bit of amusing banter in the pilot episode, it wasn't nearly enough to rescue what was otherwise a train wreck.

I wasn't expecting too much. As I wrote; I expected it to be cheap thrills and "guilty pleasure" material. That shouldn't have been too hard to achieve. Yet it failed to rise to even this level.

Maybe if they didn't try so hard, it would be better. This show seemed too desperate to scream "LAUGH AT US! PLEEEEAAASSE"! It's a sad waste of a concept with good potential and a waste of what could have been a good idea.

I guess it COULD get better with time, if it's completely re-vamped. But I'm not holding my breath.

Hard to believe - but it is! I shouldn't be surprised. Commercials try to show how unique and "funny" a show can be. Yet not only didn't the commercials announcing this new show have the slightest iota of humor to me, I've not spoken with anyone who found the commercials amusing, either.

I don't recall ever seeing a pilot so devoid of cleverness, cuteness or humor. The characters were insufferable for the most part. Especially Selma Blair's (which is astonishing she would agree to be in a fecal sample of a show like this). The few moments where the characters were slightly redeemable were considerably hackneyed and trite.

Rare is the show with no redeemable qualities at all. And this is not one of them. Kath and Kim has exactly ONE redeeming quality - and that's Selma Blair. Despite wearing repugnant outfits and acting like a pitiful, whiny stupid excuse for a young woman who seems like a cross between Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, Selma is still nice to look at.

But if you want to look at Selma, go rent Hellboy. You'll at least maintain a modicum of respect for her instead of searing this abominable character into your brain to associate with her.

All in all, Kath and Kim is a waste and truly epitomizes the worst that TV is or ever has been. It sets a new low.

This show, unlike many of the other Fox sitcom "attempts" (coughcoughstackedcough) isn't so "BAD" as it's just not GOOD. Which is actually a commentary on the depth of the writing considering that "Back to You" has some noteworthy on-screen talent.

Like many others, after Frasier, I anxiously awaited seeing the great Kelsey Grammar in a new sitcom. Patricia Heaton and the wonderfully silly Fred Willard were draws as well.

Unfortunately, the script is not equal to the cast, especially Grammar. It could be likened to watching Ian McKellen on a soap opera. It's hard watching Kelsey Grammar go from one of the best, most intelligent sitcoms of all time to this hackneyed pap.

Indeed, "hackneyed" sums up "Back to You" quite well. There's little original in the situation, characters or humor. We've seen these characters and the same chemistry between them ad nauseam. The characters don't have depth or life; which takes some adjustment after the interesting character of Frasier.

And... the humor. It could almost be enjoyed; at times. Every now and then they have a one liner which is mildly funny in an adolescent way. However it's completely ruined by the ubiquitous laugh track and the overreaction of the cast to every minor pun. Nothing ruins a laugh like the laugh track and the cast trying to convince you that you should be doubled over laughing.

Overall, despite a cast worth watching, "Back to You" is fast food down from Frasier's cuisine. Some people will enjoy this show since it adheres to the hackneyed formula for brain-dead sitcoms. If you like sitcoms most people call "dumb" and "banal", you may enjoy "Back to You". However if you're looking for a comedy with any depth, originality or intelligence, look elsewhere.

Where, I don't know these days, but not here.

You can always tell the comments which come from those with a vested interest in a movie like this. Amidst myriad comments decrying how AWFUL it was, you get a few who praise it - much worse, they actually cast votes as high as 10/10! No matter how much guilty pleasure one derives from dreck like this, by no stretch of the imagination could this film be ranked as high as the greatest films of all time!

Yet I'm not here to rail on those who pretend this is a good film. I have nothing against them. I merely bring them up to point out how pathetic this film truly is. That it will garner no sincere admiration of this (or nearly any) level.

Movies just don't get any more stupid. This movie ranks among the very worst, with no real redeeming qualities or enjoyability whatsoever. It is true garbage.

Sad to know this is what the Sci-Fi Channel has stooped to. Now they have become synonymous with movies which scrape the bottom of the barrel and are written for severely mentally disabled adults or below average children.

Oh, yes, gotta love those laugh tracks!

I mean, what would we do if we weren't told when to laugh? If every quip was not indicated to us as being funny by uproarious laughter each time? Forget those shows which are CLEVER and require a modicum of brainpower to appreciate. In fact who needs cleverness at all when you have the LAUGH TRACK! When something is supposed to be funny - cue up that laugh track and we'll KNOW it's funny! Not because anything inherently made it funny but because we were told so.

Oh, the off-color jokes, you ask? Why did they bother to write them when we have the LAUGH TRACK telling us to be amused? Well, for SHOCK VALUE, of course! I mean, you must differentiate this laugh track guided show from the myriad other laugh-tracked shows. While we're laughing something will somehow deeply disturb us - even though we don't know why because we KNOW it's funny since the LAUGH TRACK is telling us so. So we're laughing and we're shocked. The one-two punch on which we dumbed-down Americans thrive today.

Yes, forget quality when you can have a LAUGH TRACK! HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH hee hee ha ha ha ha ho ho..... HUH?

I've seen this movie too many times.

Oh, not "The Punisher". I mean the story. The characters. The formula. Sadly, this movie departed little from the "hero deals blow to crime boss... crime boss gets revenge on hero's loved ones... hero, after being thought dead, comes back to violently ruin crime boss' day... big showdown in the end" formula. There's really very little original here.

This movie departed from the comic book in a number of ways. Sadly, nearly every such departure was a major step in the WRONG direction. Most notably was the well-known tragedy which turned Frank Castle into the Punisher. In the comics the long-established origin is that Castle's family was accidentally caught in crossfire in a mob war. Sadly, this movie's solution lacked the power and grit of the comic version. I imagine this was changed just to make it more an action scene. Whatever the reason - BAD MOVE.

Overall this movie was unoriginal and leaned towards the "stupid" side where you get the feeling the writers didn't consider their audience to be very intelligent.

Can I recommend this movie? Not really. While not the worst movie, there's nothing here which hasn't been done better in many other movies. If you're a fan of the comic; you will be genuinely disappointed with the changes.

Some movies make you think.

Some movies make you laugh.

Some movies are guilty pleasures.

Alas, this is not any of the above.

Yes, Sci-Fi Channel is continuing on its mission to re-define "Science Fiction" as "brain-dead horror aimed at 9-year-old boys who find pro wrestling enjoyable".

The plot of Sasquatch Mountain is beyond stupid. Was it envisioned by someone deluded enough to find it quality? Or was it envisioned by someone who was selling out to an idea that a substantial number of fans WANT this drivel? We have become stupid enough as a nation without Sci Fi Channel trying to dry up what's left of our brains.

Oh, yes - DON'T BELIEVE the evaluations written by LIARS who are somehow invested in the movie PRETENDING to be fans who actually enjoyed it. First clue - these people voted this movie a 10/10. That's impossible. Even someone who is a fan of this kind of lunacy would never consider it among the BEST movies around. Don't believe the liars.

At first I winced when I heard this show has the tag-line of banality, namely "A Sci-Fi Channel Original". Yet when I saw the concept I had hope. When I saw Stan Lee, comic book guru and personal idol that he is, would be involved, I knew I had to check out this show! However, despite some interesting facets, the stench of "Sci-Fi Channel Original" still has managed to permeate this show.

Stan Lee is unquestionably the high point. He has a great presence on screen and adds drama. He also is THE person to be in such a show. The other potential high point of this show is (or at least would have been) is the entertainment value of seeing people express their creativity and dress up as their fantasy super-hero creations!

This is where it falls flat. Instead of multiple NEW super-hero candidates each week, it appears we are stuck with the SAME dwindling group of heroes in the typical reality-show "vote 'em off" formula. Seeing new heroes and new personalities could have been quite amusing for some time to come. I can't imagine the appeal in seeing the SAME characters in new and lame reality-show style competitions and being overly melodramatic at the end when someone gets voted off.

Another serious problem with this show is that it appears to be overly contrived. I could not believe in any of these characters. They seemed scripted and unreal parodies. Most of the contestants are established actors.

Sorry - but even the legend of Stan Lee can't quite rescue this show from the "Sci-Fi Original" tag of low quality programming. If the creators had dared to be ORIGINAL in concept and not follow the tired, banal, worn-out reality show format, they might have had a show which was at least very amusing and humorous.

OK. I agree this show qualifies as "guilty pleasure". A few of the acts actually DO have talent. Many of the others have a certain brainless remedial value to watch while you do the dishes, chat on the internet or sort through your mail.

As a serious talent search, however (like Star Search was), it's absurd! Out of the immense pool of talented people in America, this can't possibly represent the highest echelon! This show is watchable in the way The Gong Show was; a number of silly novelty acts. Yet The Gong Show didn't take itself so seriously! It didn't try to claim it had some of America's greatest talent! It didn't have judges who feign sincere commentary. Plus the acts appeared ONCE and were gone; you didn't have the same acts vying for slots in final rounds. It was simple silly fun. This show would have done better to be the same.

This show became somewhat absurd when the judges not only venerated the RAPPING GRANNY but voted her into the finals! America's Got Talent lost all credibility with that move. "America's Got Cheap Novelty Acts" would be a better title.

They shouldn't pretend to sincerely be about quality when a no-talent "rapping granny" is the judges' choice.

P.S. Should I even mention that "America's GOT Talent" is improper English?

The 2005-2006 season has been an uncommonly good one for FOX overall. Which is a refreshing change after many seasons of canceling wonderful shows (including Firefly, John Doe, Futurama and many others) and abysmal reality shows. For some time it appeared FOX had given up on virtually all quality programming.

However this season we had "House". "Bones". "Prison Break". "24". Let's not forget cornerstones like "American Idol". Overall a quality season.

And... then came "Unan1mous". Eww. Amidst a lineup of shows, a number of which were real winners, FOX reverts to type for a moment and brings on garbage like this. A banal reality show in keeping with such "gems" as Joe Millionaire and Mr Personality. What can I saw about this show except - STOP MAKING THINGS LIKE THIS! If you ever get a chance to see this, for heaven's sake, DON'T! Oh, well. FOX has redeemed themselves, for the most part, in my eyes. Prison Break, 24 and House are excellent shows. I can forgive them for Unan1mous.

I forgive them less for canceling "Arrested Development", one of the best comedies in years, but that is another story... ;)

Like many others, I saw the name "Stephen King" attached to this film and that prompted me to see it.

Oh, the dupe that I was!

I also heard this film was a breakthrough in CGI. Again, I was duped.

This film was not interesting in story OR CGI. King sued to have his name removed and I don't blame him. The story was NOT up to King's standards. It would appear the story was written around the idea to showcase the CGI of the film.

As for the CGI, some were "interesting" for their time - but more interesting in terms of being a demo reel for the CGI of the day than apropos to good movie making. All the CGI seemed to scream "hey look at what I can do with the computer" as opposed to enhancing the story. Indeed, the CGI competes with the story.

The problem with such heavy reliance on dazzling viewers with the latest CGI "tricks", especially in this era, is that very quickly the visuals lose the ability to impress. Today one views them more as laughable than impressive. I was tempted to call them "first generation theatrical CGI" but I couldn't forget movies like Tron, who used even more primitive graphics to good effect years earlier. Tron is a good example of a movie that is still watchable even though by today's standards the CGI is positively paleolithic. Another of what I now call "second generation CGI" films is Terminator 2 which is still very enjoyable. But Lawnmower Man? It was a CGI tech's playground which is easily forgettable. Not the worst movie I've ever seen but not very good either.