Reviews

A couple of problems with this cash grab. First problem is these clowns supposedly looking for Maura are not seriously discovering anything. But every episode has cliffhanger moments before commercial break. And guess what, every single one amounts to nothing, zilch. Anyone with a brain picks up on the con early. Just a vanity piece for two podcasters trying to cash in. The second problem is a bigger one to me. That Maura Murray has become famous. Why, well she went missing, right? Well, not really. We all know the reason her case has drawn fame is because she is an attractive white girl. Character-wise, she is kinda shady. But she looks so attractive in those sill photos.

Look, I know this was a little mindless "made for TV" vignettes. Maybe we shouldn't be too critical, but, hard not to be. Obviously the writing and acting are not topnotch, far from it. But the factor that makes this piece unwatchable, completely unwatchable, is the laugh track that is turned on at the start and left to run the entire episode. It is so beyond irritating and distracting. Moments that clearly are not humorous or even intended to be humorous have the stupid laugh track blaring away. You start to wonder if the whole episode is a practical joke. Couple this with a lead, Herb Shriner, that is perhaps the worst actor ever, and man does this stink.

I love how the state indicts and convicts someone, multiple appeals courts uphold the conviction, but they are all wrong because a law professor with an agenda can present innuendo and hearsay to question said verdict. And make no mistake, the so-called evidence presented that tries to place blame on Carlos Hernandez instead of Carlos DeLuna, is nothing more than innuendo and hearsay. Absolutely nothing discovered by the Northwestern University innocence professor would have ever been admitted as legitimate evidence. It is smoke and mirrors, you can do it with any crime. But it is nothing more than propaganda. Texas got the right guy.

As an Austinite that has been captivated by this tragic case since it happened, I was happy that the case was being given more coverage, anything to keep it in the spotlight. I figured People would get a lot of attention for the case. Heck, they got John Jones, Beverly Lowery, Mike Lynch, Sonora Thomas, to do interviews. These are people connected to this case. And those people do provide good material. The problem is the incredibly sloppy production here. The stock footage conflicts with the actual evidence. Then you have numerous factual errors presented. The show outright says the four boys stole the SUV and went to San Antonio on the night of December 6th. They stole the car on the night of December 7th. This is a huge error that makes the boys look guilty. The producers constantly mix the years up I'm the investigation. Some good info, but the fact checking was not good.

I am not going to lie, the acting in this movie is terrible, I mean, maybe beyond terrible. But hey, it's still got Jim Brown, who kinda tries. In fact, compared to the other actors in this film, he looks like a master thespian.. You also have extensive footage of India as it was shot on location. I think the India footage is enough to bump up the rating here. Culturally speaking, pretty neat. The plot? Well, let's just say, not essential or really sensical. Did I mention Jim Brown is in it and it was filmed in India? OK, it's a a really bad film. However, MST3K has shown us, bad movies can be kinda fun.

I realize that outside the original Halloween directed by John Carpenter, none of the movies in the franchise can be described as good. It has been one poor attempt after another. But we watch because there is nostalgia that comes with this franchise. Now I have no problem with handing it off to someone new to breathe life into the franchise. But Rob Zombie was not the one. Quite frankly, Rob is not a very good director. His music is awesome and I own everything by him, but his movies are just lacking. But hey, I have an open mind. The big problem here is, this movie in no way pays homage to the original. There are no scares, nothing psychological, nothing innovative. It is just Zombie sleaze and slashing, usingthe Halloween name. The only real connection to Carpenter's movie us Zombie borrows the names of the original characters and town, that's it. It's just a big professional wrestler roaming around killing bad actors, awful.

How does a film with Henry Fonda, Aldo Ray and Warren Oates end up being so boring? This film literally plays out like a documentary about dull people that live uneventful lives. Heck, Keenan Wynn and John Anderson, very respectable supporting actors, also play boring roles in the film. I think I scratched my head for about an hour wondering if anything was going to happen, it didn't. I am aware that this movie was based on a book, I can only imagine the book was powerfully dull as well. And for the record, Janice Rule plays one of the most irritating and tedious characters in movie history. Her one dimensional, Dull character fits perfectly with this story.

This is a "just the facts" podcast. He doesn't crack lame jokes, try to come off like a know-it-all, or make reckless theories. Have listened for years and am amazed by the consistency and research. So many podcasts are just people with limited knowledge trying to come off as hip or cool. Robin is not really cool, what he is is a guy that knows every facet of a case and raises the points you are sure to be asking. I often will listen to cases he does that have previously been covered on other podcasts. The big difference here, Warder is hitting the crucial points so many others brushed aside. If you want to know the facts, this is the podcast for you.

Gives a voice to cold-blooded, manipulative, murderers. These women deserve capital punishment, not even up for debate. Yet, the show tries to make us feel bad about the treatment these monsters are enduring on death row. The show I guess tries to present both sides, but one of the sides is nothing but manipulation and evil. I'm sorry, it is just infuriating hearing these murderers try to gain pity. I feel sadness for the victims and their families, especially if they have to watch these murderers go on about how emotionally damaging it is to be on death row, oblivious to the pain they have inflicted on so many families.

Compulsion is really two movies. The first half details Judd and Arty (based on Leopold Loeb), who go about quoting Nietzche and trying to prove that they fall in to the "superman" ideals and practices that he espoused. The acting here is really good as Stockwell and Dillman shine. I think the director should have kept the focus on them and showed how their perfect plan collapsed around them. However, instead, the boys are arrested and we enter the second half of the film, where it becomes an Orson Welles stage performance, a stage performance so over the top and cringey, that you might feel somewhat agitated. His nonsensical plea to spare the lives of the two are insulting to all that didn't attend California Berkeley. But it is not just the ideological nonsense, it is the incredibly pretentious and self-righteous character Welles portrays as a heavier set Clarence Darrow. Make no mistake, in real life Clarence Darrow was brilliant and worthy of admiration. Spencer Tracey nailed him in Inherit the Wind. Welles creates a sappy and manipulative huckster that wouldn't have been convincing to any judge or jury. His whole performance is just so awful that a movie worthy of a 9, gets dropped to a 6.

I did not find this series boring. However, I did sense the whole documentary was a tease. Good ol' Bob is playing it up for the camera, a lot. But Ruff suggests so many assumptions that just have no merit. The stunt where he has a guy recreate the trek from the crime scene to Bojangles is pure theater and irrelevant. The scene where he is tracking down all the WM3 guys because he needs their permission to DNA test evidence is pure nonsense. He is acting like getting oral OKs will allow a Podcaster to obtain forensic evidence from a triple homicide for DNA testing. Say what!? The state is not opening this case unless they have a law enforcement officer that finds an actual suspect. The DA is not going to turn over evidence for television ratings. This documentary is very much like a podcast, a lot of innuendo, loose facts, and not much else.

Armisen and Heder are true geniuses, with a perception that really cuts to the chase. In "The Bunker" the boys create a documentary about a fictional gubernatorial election in Ohio that is based on Bill Clinton's run for President in 1992 (Chronicled in "The War Room.")

The main emphasis is on how the candidates and the impacts of their political careers become irrelevant, compared to the efforts of self absorbed "kingmakers" that see the democratic process as nothing more than a chance for them to use their creativity and lack of morality to win. WIN anyway you can, to show people you are that smart and accomplished.

The incumbent being challenged is portrayed as very capable and accomplished (a stretch for Bush), while the challenger is seen as very moral, but completely unqualified for office (also a stretch for Clinton). However, the candidates are irrelevant, the focus is on the sociopaths behind the scenes. But in this case, the hilarious sociopaths.

For the life of me, I don't know why this film wasn't bigger and better reviewed. The acting is top shelf, with Lithgow, Mahone, Collet, and Nixon very invested. The story is smart and the beautiful New York countryside is breathtaking.

The story centers around a highly intelligent high school student with an advanced scientific pedigree seeking attention. When his mother starts dating a nuclear scientist, the ingredients are there for him to create something very special. However, he is unaware of the serious repercussions that are about to come from his hijinks.

I strongly recommend this film for the nostalgia, great acting, and savvy story. Maybe this film was released to soon after WarGames, but to me, this film stands on its own.

As a student of true crime and satanic panic this plot interested me. In the end, it does an excellent job of showing how satanic panic manifests and why. I thought the overall look of the film was spooky and eerie. The nightmare scenes were straight up disturbing. Hawke is all in as the crusading agnostic detective that gets drawn into something that goes entirely against what he believes. Obviously critics were not friendly to this film, but I don't know why, i just don't see the weaknesses. The story is intelligent, the writing is strong, the acting solid, and the direction is quality. Strongly recommend.

I am really not sure what kind of twisted mind enjoys young females being brutalized and raped. Of course the victims are scantly clad with pushup bras to heighten the exploitative nature of this garbage. And to think this garbage has been done twice, says something about our species.

Quite frankly, this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. So many slow and dull scenes that just leave you checking your phone or watch. McCarthy's main character is one of the most pretentious and unlikable"heroes" in movie history. For some reason, residents of Kansas have outrageous southern accents. The movie is just a bore, outside of the scenes when Matt Dillon is involved. Dillon dominates the screen, but he just isn't in it enough.

Geez, this thing was awful. The acting was horrid. The writing was pathetic. I am not sure how this thing got made. I think it was supposed to be a comedy, but the intellectual level is kindergarten at best. I know some people say you have to not take some movies seriously, I get that and can often do that. But when they are this bad you just find your jaw dropping in amazement at how it somehow finds a way to get worse and worse. Terrible movie!

Stumbled on this airing on HBO and was completely blown away. I will let you in on a secret, I have coached UIL academics, so I have some background here, and wow, did they nail it! But that is only half of it. The characters are so well developed and funny. The lead actor is incredible. As I watched I just got this strong Wes Anderson feel because there are many trademarks of his work there, which I love! I strongly recommend this film for anybody looking for something creative, funny, and most importantly, different.

I was fixing to write this show off. This season was coming across as phoned in. There had been a couple of good shows, mainly "Bill and Tez's Sexcellent Adventure," but most were uninspired. Enter this great episode. Great story and great performances. One of the best ever. So many great scenes.

Let's be honest, with a movie made by the Coen brothers comes expectations. This movie fails mightily in regards to those expectations. Don't get me wrong, the movie is beautifully shot and Brolin is solid as always in the lead. The problem with this movie is a horribly undeveloped plot and characters that are never developed or really significant at all to the story. You see this big name cast advertised, but for no reason whatsoever. Outside of Brolin and Clooney, practically no other characters are on screen for more than a couple of minutes, or are relevant to the story. Scarlett Johansson is completely irrelevant to the story, as is Channing Tatum. Jonah Hill phones in a bit part that had no point in even existing. The only supporting actor that really shines in their brief time on screen is Alden Ehrenreich, who is terrific. Sadly, he is introduced and then exits just as fast. This was a halfhearted effort by two very talented but bored filmmakers. They really did not have an idea for a complete movie, just a neat idea for a skit, a skit with no legs. I am a huge Coen fan, but this was pretentious and a waste of time..

Bryan Cranston is great, period. The guy has never failed to entertain and absolutely steal a movie or show. As usual, he is excellent in this movie. I don't have a problem with any of the actors, they all deliver. The problem comes from trying to adapt a very specific and detailed book into a ninety minute movie. Adapating a screenplay from a movie is so difficult. When you have read the book you have a detailed understanding of the story. The problem is as you make the movie, you assume that the audience has that same background and understanding, we don't. There are numerous parts in this film where I was scratching my head and saying who is that or what just happened? I am a fairly intelligent guy, but I did not read the book, so, you have to introduce me to some characters and plot points that you have provided no background on. That or make a ten hour movie. This film was disjointed and fragmented by a lack of cohesion in the screenplay.

I have to admit that I am shocked by the low overall rating for this film. To me this was another classic by the brothers. The formula is very similar to other movies they have made, but maybe this one pulls a little more for the heart strings. Hal has been programmed to be shallow and superficial by not only his father, but society in general. However, with the help of Tony Robbins he is able to see what true beauty and decency are, and as he realizes, both of those things are more than skin deep. Lots of great gags and humor along the way. People that thought the film was insensitive really didn't get it. And for my money, the greatest ending ever, with the great "Love Grows" playing us out. A rewarding experience.

Like most people I was unfamiliar with this case before watching this "documentary." And like most people, I was disturbed as the makers of the film started to create real doubt as to the guilt of this man. Little insinuations and open ended segments are put in that make you scream "what is going on here!?" However, unlike most people that have watched this series, I started to research the court records of this case. I started to examine the actual evidence and testimony. I went beyond just getting my information from this show. What I found was probably the most open and shut case in the history of mankind. You had a truly evil human being, that had motive (the desire to rape and kill women). means (he was the last person to see the victim alive) and more physical evidence than you can shake a stick at. The man made numerous anonymous attempts to lure this woman on to his property, there is no evidence of her ever leaving his property, her vehicle and remains were found on his property... it is open and shut. As for the defense's case, they did not have one. They simply relied on "it is a conspiracy." But there is not one example of them ever expanding on or proving that conspiracy. So many facts all but scream, Avery did it, from his numerous attempts to lure the nervous victim on to his property, numerous incidents of his abusing women and others, his feeling that his being wronged in the past allowed him to do anything he wished to women, the actual physical remains of her body on his property, along with her vehicle, all of which he tried to cover up. I will not even bother with the numerous incriminating events in his background and numerous people that heard him brag about what he did. Steven Avery is a very bad man and a very guilty man, the testimony in court proved that, which is why the jury convicted. Anybody that would take the time to actually examine the case on their own, instead of simply relying on this extremely deceptive and manipulated "documentary," would know that. People have said this is a disturbing documentary, I agree. It is disturbing, because some manipulative filmmakers decided they were going to create a documentary to con thousands of people into thinking a guilty person was innocent, and they did just that. They mixed and edited a film that turned black in to white and up in to down. They banked on a viewing audience being too lazy and inflamed to actually take time to examine the real facts of the case. That is evil almost in the realm of Steven Avery.

This is one of Bogart's first roles and boy does he steal the film. He has a presence that dominates the film. His "Duke" character is gangster at gangster's best. The problem with this film is the irritating performance of Leslie Howard. His character is so repulsive and obnoxious. Not an ounce of reality or common sense to the character. I just kept saying, come on Duke, kill him already. Come to think of it, there were a a few unbelievable and irritating characters in this film that just made overall enjoyment of this film impossible. This is the classic example of a play trying to make the transition to the big screen and failing quite uncomfortably. However, the film reveals the early brilliance of the legend that is Humphrey Bogart.