Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Serious Actors Attempting Comedy
15 August 2002
While watching the first two seasons of this show on DVD I felt there were some bright spots, but something bothered me. It wasn't until I saw both seasons in their entirety that I realized that none of the actors are inherently funny.

Mr. Show carries the weight of drama school intensity. None of the actors seems to inhabit their characters, instead they look like Drama Club nerds trying desperately to impress their acting coaches.

So I guess my main complaint about Mr. Show is that the actors are trying too hard, and it shows.

Regarding the DVD, the commentary portion is very revealing. Many of the cast members participate, and their contempt for the audience (both the live audience during the show and anyone who might be watching the DVD) is palpable. "Idiots" is one of the nicer terms they use to describe us. Real nice, very classy.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beggars and Choosers (1999–2001)
One of the Worst Shows on Television
10 December 2000
Bad writing, bad acting and bad direction are the three prongs of anti-talent that skewer the viewer and roast him slowly over the fires of television hell while watching this piece of dreck.

Why is it that HBO is the stronghold of quality original programming, while Showtime comes up with shows that wouldn't survive half a season on UPN?
2 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Almost Famous (2000)
4/10
Sanitized for your protection
23 September 2000
This is a nice, white bread version of rock and roll and life in the early 1970's. There are a few nice moments, a few great ones, but the movie never delivers on it's (considerable) promises. The world depicted here has been so sanitized that in the end the film is just a piece of harmless fluff.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Topsy-Turvy (1999)
3/10
Beware! Three hours of your life is at stake!
3 April 2000
I was hugely disappointed with this film. I was hoping for a better understanding of the world of Gilbert and Sullivan, how they worked and how their company operated. What I got, however, was a completely elitist representation of England in the late 19th century.

Going into this film without an extensive knowledge of the history of the period will leave you at a distinct disadvantage. But it's not just the history; there are specific facts about G&S and their company of players that you will need to know in order to make sense of what's going on. Because the filmmaker doesn't find it necessary to clue you in on these things, the film excludes non-G&S scholars and commits the ultimate sin of being boring.

The film is also clunky in the way that an improvised piece can be. There are some charming scenes that play quite nicely, but many more that meander, overstay their welcome and finally end, leaving you wondering "What the hell was that all about?"

I found myself looking at my watch, something I do only when trapped in the worst of movies. But one good thing has come out of this experience: after speaking to friends, we found out that we had all seen the film based on critics' recommendations. Not one of us thought to warn the others about "Topsy Turvy," since we all desperately wanted to forget it. Now we've formed a group, sort of a "Neighborhood Watch" for films, with an early warning system to protect each other from trash like this. I feel safer walking into a theater now.

Danger, Will Robinson!
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The title of this film should be "Corn Dog: The Way of the Ham on Rye..."
13 March 2000
...because Forest Whitaker is a mite hefty for the role he plays.

The character of Ghost Dog talks a lot about samurai philosophy, but he must have picked it up off a menu in a Japanese restaurant. The word "discipline" just does not come to mind when you see this guy.

I believed Ghost Dog as a Samurai about as much as I believed those Teenaged Turtles were Mutant Ninjas.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Dumb, but not completely awful
8 February 2000
This is a film I saw when I was a child, and I remember thinking it was cool in a bizarre sort of way. I recently saw it again, and although it did not hold up the way, say, Citizen Kane did, I did laugh at the parts I remembered and my affectionate memories were not completely wiped out. Any movie with Lugosi is a treat, and for my money any movie with Zombies is a must see.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale (1967)
Makes you wish Woody was still funny.
15 December 1999
Casino Royale is a prime example of what happens when ego clashes with talent and ego wins. There are some great moments in the film, but if the lack of coherence and obvious squandering of fine actors doesn't make you angry, you just don't care enough about movies.

The best thing about Casino Royale is being able to see a young Woody Allen playing it strictly for laughs. Makes you realize how good he was at being funny, and what a singular character he created for himself. Also makes you wish you spent more time anticipating his next work and not just wondering who he's going to dump his daughter for when she gets too old for him.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed