Reviews

I stumbled on this movie without knowing anything about it. It's a charming high school rom-com with no surprises, but executed very well.

The viewer does have to suspend disbelief on a few things. High school students aren't this glib, most of them aren't queer, and they aren't this nice. They drink and take drugs, but they are very polite. Unlike a John Hughes movie, all the students get along. There aren't any bullies or bad guys.

Rowan Blanchard, Auli'i Cravalho, and Isabella Ferreira all did a great job. They all seemed like real people with back stories and the usual uncertainties.

The adults, Aasif Mandvi, Michelle Buteau and Megan Mullally are background characters for the high school drama, but they had there own things going on and added to the plausibility of the movie.

There were a lot of funny quips and witty dialogue. Not hilarious, but funny if the viewer is paying attention.

With so many versions of Peter Pan, a studio should have a reason for making another one. I like the 1953 animated version because animation lends itself to the fantasy nature of the story, but there are several good live action versions. Peter Pan & Wendy is not one of them. With the advances in CGI, this movie could have been splendid. The CGI was kind of bland, and didn't add much.

The real problem was that it felt like Disney was just making a movie to have another movie. Jude Law is a splendid actor and was an impressive Hook, but even he seemed like he was just doing his job. The other actors didn't have much charisma or chemistry.. Not exactly bad, just delivering lines and moving around. I expect Peter Pan to have joy and wonder.

It seemed too boring for kids, so I don't know who would bother with this.

Disregard the people who give a 10/10 to any strong female role or the 1/10 for being too woke. I just want to be entertained. No spoilers here, so watch She-Hulk and decide for yourself.

The writers don't seem to know how to tell a story well. They seem to disregard conventional guidelines for writing. A writer can go unconventional, but the guidelines have to be well understood for it to work.

Breaking the fourth wall can work to good effect if the protagonist is really likeable or sympathetic and says something that adds to the narrative. A technique like this is risky and should be used sparingly. It was used well in Deadpool. When Jennifer Walters does it, the story was interrupted. Like the writers are leaning on a gimmick.

Writers should show it, not tell it. In She-Hulk, characters are explaining too much, like the viewer can't be trusted to figure it out or the writers can't be bothered to put the time in to show what they want to convey.

Jennifer Walters doesn't seem to have any room to grow. She's better at being the Hulk than the Hulk is. A better show would have put the time into her struggles mastering the new power. Perhaps in future episodes her confidence and lack of struggle will generate situations that will make for more interesting episodes.

Tatiana Maslany was fantastic in Orphan Black, so the fault doesn't seem to be with her. If you haven't seen it yet, watching Orphan Black would be a much better use of your time.

I've read that the writers were going for an Ally McBeal courtroom comedy. Calista Flockhart, as Ally McBeal, displayed much more self-doubt and room to grow as a character. She had flaws that made for an entertaining TV show. Watch Ally McBeal instead.

Corner Gas is a fun and quirky show, and I loved it 5 minutes into the first episode, but some people won't get it. Maybe it's Seinfeld for rural folks. It's a show about nothing, but it's great fun watching the characters live through it.

Comedian Brent Butt is the main character, running a gas station next to a cafe in a small town in Saskatchewan, but the show is about all the characters. If you need outlandish characters and a laugh track, this show isn't for you. Corner Gas is smart and well written so all of the characters are odd in a plausible way. People are nice, but not too nice. They try to do the right thing, but it usually doesn't work out.

If you stumble upon Corner Gas on a streaming service, you should give it a try. You'll know in one episode if it's for you. Currently, it's showing on IMDB TV in the US, and on Amazon Prime for the rest of the world.

I picked this movie randomly because I thought it had flying cars. My friends and I have been getting into RC cars recently, so I stuck with it. The main character, Drew, is a perfect example of a guy not quite ready to be an adult. The actor, Jeremy Schuetze, does a nice job of making him likeable, but every time he does a dumb thing, you know its going to bite him in the ass, but Drew doesn't know. I was wondering why is girlfriend sticks with him, but they pull it all together at the end of the movie.

Its like watching a slow speed train wreck. Not the movie, but Drew.

Ignore the people who hated or loved this movie, they have are just playing out an agenda. My friend picked this movie when we got to the movie theater, I had no idea what it was about and had not heard the Olivia Wilde social media exchanges. Beanie and Dever were fine, but nobody else in the movie acted in any way like an actual high school kid. The madcap adventures were disconnected, implausible and frantic. The dialogue was fine, but none of it sticks with you. The movie was ok. Not terrible, not great.

Looking for something different, I found H20: Just Add Water and Mako Mermaids. I watched the three seasons of H20 first because it came out first. Perhaps because I'm not a 14 year-old, I was not fond of the series. The actress playing Cleo just didn't seem like she could act, always relying on goofy facial expressions. And her sister was pretty 2-dimensional, and toward the end, just dysfunctional. A couple of other characters, were toxic to the point that a person would be advised to avoid them at all costs. And the mermaids chose jobs where getting wet was way too likely. I guess that was it, the writing just had people doing things, interacting with characters or saying things a normal person in that situation would avoid. Rikki was the only one at all likeable and portrayed by an actress with some talent. There was also a weird male vibe on H20. Like all the guys were repressed and passive-aggressive. Sorry to go on about H20, but that's where many people start.

I was not optimistic about Mako Mermaids, but gave it a try. The beginning of the first episode did not start well, but once the mermaids were on land, the show improved quickly. The mermaids actually act rationally. The guys act more like normal people. The actors involved are much more talented, and can do comedy and have relateable personalities. The show has humor and wit. Because the mermaids are not humans, the "fish out of water" plot device is used to good affect. There is much less high school drama and teen angst.

To sum it up, H20 is for teenagers, Mako Mermaids is for a broader audience.

I enjoyed Season 1 of Westworld, and was eager to see how the series developed. However, Season 2 is incomprehensible. There is no dramatic tension at all because if someone gets killed, they come back. Of course that's only the robots who can come back, but maybe the human was a robot. Or the character keeps showing up in endless flashbacks. There are some action sequences that could be interesting, but its difficult to care since the outcome seems irrelevant. Following any part of the plot is fruitless because what you are watching could be a ruse or a flashback. In parts, it seems like the writers are punishing for watching by making a scene as boring as possible. I'm not sure if I gave up trying follow what characters were trying to accomplish or I just no longer cared. Even Dolores, a fetching character with depth, is no longer of any interest.

I do enjoy the musical score. And Season 2 is a good show to put on in the background if you have things to do around the house. Even when there is tense dialogue or what would be compelling action, I don't bother looking up as I unload the dishwasher because no dialogue, action or story development matters.

I've read a bunch of reviews for STD, and noticed that most of the reviewers who love STD, insult and denigrate people who don't. As you read the reviews, some people layout out their criticisms very clearly. I'm just going to give general impressions.

I love Sci-Fi. I started with the original Star Trek in 1968, and have watched all the Star Treks, Stargates, Babylon 5 and most of the rest. Usually there is some overall theme or plot direction for the season. STD seems to wander all over the place. Every episode, it looks like they are taking the series some other direction. Not like a plot twist, but like the show runner keeps changing.

I like a series, Sci-Fi or not, with some likeable characters. STD doesn't seem to have any. The characters run from sadistic to simple-minded, but none of them seem like people you know. They have no depth or sides to their personality. And the dominant demeanor is unbridled emotionalism, but never joy or wonder, always dark. And forget wit or humor.

If you like Star Trek, try Orville. That is a little campy, but Star Trek plots with people acting like humans.

Many of the other reviewers hated Stargate Origins. It isn't as bad as that. No, the story is not compelling. The bad guys are one-dimensional. The main character is a cute blonde who wants to be taken seriously, unless she wants to use her sex appeal to manipulate. She has no leadership ability and doesn't seem to care about anyone, but herself. The leading man is spineless and without skill. He does have an ethnic sidekick who may be mildly brain damaged. The short episodes are irritating because the plot doesn't move much. The only show I can think of with episodes this short is Frisky Dingo, and that moved along briskly.

On the positive side, the lead is cute, and may not be wearing a bra. The sidekick isn't as offensive as Jar-Jar Binks. The production staff did get plausible looking effects, passable costumes and decent lighting. I hope they get an 'A' on their film school project.

Remember the environmental catastrophe movie, "The Day After Tomorrow"? In that one, Jack Frost was chasing people as the cold advanced. If the frost touched you, you froze solid. That happens in Geostorm, but it isn't just ice that chases people, but lightning, hail and heat.

The engineer who invented a multi-trillion dollar space station and satellite mesh to save the world is a noble hermit, living off the grid after "The Man" treated him harshly. Oh, his brother is "The Man", working as a presidential adviser. They haven't talked for years. His daughter is lovely, mouthy, precocious mechanical genius who only sees dad occasionally because mom couldn't handle his eccentric ways. All the nations came together to build this gigantic space station, run by a German woman. The software engineer who helps save the day is a black, quirky woman. The lead secret service action hero is also a woman. All the pure hearts and misunderstood heroes get a tiresome.

Literally nothing in the real universe functions the way it does in this movie.

Ghost in the Shell is a movie with an inspired version of the future. The atmosphere of the city is reminiscent of Blade Runner. If you are into Sci-Fi, then you won't see any technology that is new, but it is all put together well. That is all this movie has. It is like a play with a great set, but nothing else. Characters are flat, and the dialogue is the style where a character speaks a cryptic sentence, then another character says a sentence that doesn't have anything to do with the first sentence. None of the characters have any warmth, emotion or personality. The action scenes were okay, but is that enough to thrill anyone when you don't care who lives or dies? No, that's why this movie didn't do well in the theaters.

A friend who rarely recommends TV shows, recommended Schitt's Creek, so I was eager to give it a try. I can suspend disbelief when watching TV or a movie, but I appreciate people acting plausibly. Nobody in Schitt's Creek acts like a real person. Everybody is an ignorant stereotype. The ex-rich Rose family don't act like any rich or successful people I've ever met. In the first episode, Eugene Levy's character, Johnny Rose, is unable to explain to an earthy townie that the family needs time to unpack. Rose is supposed to be a rich video store magnate. He should have some ability to get people to do things. The rest are all neurotic, selfish and self-absorbed. None have any charisma or interpersonal skills. The townies are drawn just as poorly. They seem to be dense and limited, living desperate lives. The actors are generally talented, but the writers really seem to hate people.

A person with an appreciation and some experience with a wide range of people would have written a much better show. Successful people may have management skills and the ability look for opportunities. Even rich kids, who travel all over the world, should have some ability to adapt. Townies may be resourceful, grounded and enjoy the small town life. I get its a fish out of water story, but written by people that have never seen fish and hate the water.

After watching several episodes, I'm starting to doubt my friend.

Much of the buzz about "The Handmaid's Tale" is that this is what could happen if America turned into a Christian theocracy. I'm not a religious person, but I don't see how anything in the show matches up with any Christian doctrine. Religious people I know don't have practices that match anything in "The Handmaid's Tale". Especially the part about keeping a mopey girl around the house so you can bang her to have kids. Yeah, I know, the women are infertile, but wouldn't a clinical method of getting the mope pregnant be more likely? This dystopian future is highly structured, with plenty of cultural taboos and enforcement infrastructure. How did this all get implemented? All the characters have a recent history, so this societal reboot happened in a span of five years? I can't imagine it in America. Gays have been a political force for 40 years and they just recently got the right to marry.

As others have mentioned, not much really happens. None of the characters have any charisma or are likable. The viewer is supposed to be sympathetic to the handmaids. They have no freedom and are essentially property. As the show drags on, I start noticing other people. I feel sorry for the guards who have to stand on the sidewalk holding a machine gun all day. That's it, just stand there. At least the handmaids can chat with each other and are in a comfortable house.

If you love this show, its because you make yourself love it. Or you are politically insecure and like to be frightened. There are many other shows you can watch that are much more engaging.

This is not a movie I would have chosen, but Director Luc Besson has "Valerian" coming out soon, and this movie was mentioned in a review. There are reviews written by people with far greater knowledge. I have a casual understanding of the story of Joan of Arc, and know less about the events of the time. As a movie, I enjoyed this immensely. This movie gets the people right.

Milla Javovich hits it perfectly. She is vulnerable while unstoppable. She is full of doubt, but completely certain. And during the trial, she can do "caged animal" with just her eyes. I can't imagine anyone else pulling this off. Milla does unapologetically devote better than anyone since Audrey Hepburn in "The Nun's Story".

The supporting cast did a stellar job. There are a lot of medieval movies and TV shows, and most of them aren't believable because people aren't stern or earnest all the time. "Game of Thrones" is fun to watch because sometimes people laugh, and sometimes they fight. If you ever saw a medieval movie, and wondered what the guard standing next to the door does when the camera and the king aren't there, this movie has it. Some reviews called that filler, but it was fun and humanized the soldiers.

I gave it a 10 because it showed people in a way different than other medieval movies. Again, I don't know if the historical facts are correct, but I would not be surprised if the people acted just like they are portrayed.

I was cautiously optimistic about this new show when I heard about it. I teach Science and have frequently used Bill Nye The Science Guy videos. Nye didn't have to tell you he loved science because he had all those quirky fun demonstrations, even the way the show was structured, said this guy lives science and sees it everywhere. In the last 10 years or so, Bill Nye has kept himself in the public eye by backing up the Progressive view. I was hoping this part of him wouldn't be prominent in this new show. Unfortunately, that's what we've got. Even the title, "Bill Nye Saves the World", there is a smug assurance that he's right. Based on watching the show, he really seems to believe that. His voice is what's missing in policy debates, he seems to think. Yeah, he brings in opposing views, but only to refute them. The show seems to believe that if Nye tries to be hip, his smugness will be forgiven. Science and technology are moving fast, we could use someone to explain the science behind so many issues in an engaging way. This show isn't that.