Reviews

I watched all of the OatsStudio shorts, which, one after the other were some film-school-level short that's a straight rip-off of a popular film from the '70s or '80s, or Adam: part 2 & 3, which are iRobot rip-offs. Literally, every guy in film school in the '90s was referring to themselves as the next Coppola while spewing the exact type stuff Blomkamp is. Except Blomkamp is in his 40s, it's 2021, and he's made at least 3 films at this point. I've seen better shorts made by young, non-industry guys working from their house.

At first I was watching them because I was expecting them to be on the same level as Love, Death, and Robots, but quickly realized they weren't. Then I was watching them because I was amused by the film-school level quality of story telling, directing, and camera work. Then, after watching the few woman who are in it do nothing but listen to long winded diatribes by men, scream, run, or kneel in submission to men while listening to long winded diatribes, my amusement turned to annoyance. Even Dakota Fanning has no purpose other than to silently listen to a no-name actor man-splain to her at GREAT length his story. If she's the only crew member out of 98 to survive, why does she have to listen to this guy explain how to survive? Then he cuts out his eyes, and his finger, for not much reason other than to show how "manly" he is, even though he gives up part way through after running a short distance. It seemed for no reason other than for a plot device for him to sacrifice himself, to, again, show how manly he is. Oh, and by the way, you can't run outside in the arctic circle during a snow storm with no clothes, jacket or warm outerwear. Also, they were worried about running out of water in the arctic. Where there's snow. Snow. Which turns into water.

I would more expect this to be the writing of a 12 to 16-year-old boy, than a grown man. It makes a lot of sense that he co-wrote District 9 with his wife, his only good film. Clearly she was the talent of the two, who, of course, no one knows her name. Elysium was straight-up, hot garbage.

Since Blomkamp looooves to splain his armchair activism in his films, maybe he should actually man-up and do the hard work of giving the money to things he claims to care about rather than blowing millions of dollars on his crap films. No? Gee, no surprise. He's just one more mediocre white guy in Hollywood there is no seeming explanation other than being born into privilege, why he is given outrageous amounts of money. And having views in-line with the uni-bomber doesn't make him any less mediocre.

Blomkamp is officially in my pile with Eli Roth and Rob Zombie of crap film makers whom you can't explain why they're allowed to make this gratuitous, man-child drivel.

My first thoughts were, WTF? The trailer advertised this fun, colorful, '80s romp, along the lines of the 1985 Jamie Lee Curtis and John Travolta film "Perfect," and instead got this weird, '70s, bulimia show where her husband is going to run for political office? The writing is terrible. Most of it is a Rose Byrne narration of her neurotic, obsessive compulsive, angry thoughts that sound very modern and not remotely '80s. Both Rose Byrne and her husband are stuck in the '70s, in their '70s house, clothes, hair, and conversations, where they just insert the words "Ronald Regan" in it 3 times in order to time stamp it, along with glimpses of an aerobics instructor, which was the only thing remotely accurate in the first episode.

Either the writer is a Boomer, fantasizing about the '70s, which she was still stuck in during the '80s, and thought aerobics would be a fun gimmick, or it's written by someone who didn't experience the '80s, never watched an '80s movie, didn't grow up on '80s television. I'm aware the setting starts in 1981, but so did Freaks and Geeks and that at least bothered to be accurate and entertaining. Like, it actually reminds me of movies from the '70s that have this dark tone, that are mostly a spewing of thoughts about average people in their average lives...but, not in a good way, like Ordinary People.

The only plus is the style. It's nice to look at...other than weird moments like Rose Byrne binge eating, and a hippie eating honey out of the jar in a grocery store. This show is best to watch on mute with Mystery Theater 3000 voice-over substitution to overlap the cringey dialogue and narrations. It was painful. Rose Byrne looks great, as always, this just sucks. Not sure if I will make it to episode 2 to see if it gets better as I barely made it through one. Too bad, Apple+ was really on a role with good shows.

Basically, Darren Star writing for the Hallmark Channel. This is no Sex in the City. Emily is annoying, trite, and the French are all caricatures set around Emily, the rude, vapid American who thinks she's always right, but blatantly ignorant, and doesn't bother to learn the French culture, customs, or language. But, neither did Darren Star, so, what do you expect? The way they sell and buy things in France is completely different than America, so, her bulldozing ahead in "her" way is completely at odds with their culture and would never work.

The story reads like, Darren Star took a trip to Paris for a week and thought, "They're so different and funny here, what if I wrote a show about that?" Most likely this is some show Darren wrote in a short time, nobody would pick it up, and it sat in a draw for awhile. Then streaming came around and the VOD studios are tossing money to anyone with a name, which is why a lot of great or good storytellers are suddenly doing a bunch of bad or mediocre shows.

A hard pass. Not the worst I've seen in the past year, but, even the scenery is not enough to make up for the bland writing and the annoying character Lily Collins is forced to play. She and her neighbor are both nice to look at and would be much better suited for a show with a little more...je nais se quois.

We were looking for something we could watch with my 13-yr-old niece, and thought the trailer looked cute. I was a big fan of Roxanne, which I saw many times, so I thought this would be a teen, modern day telling. My niece and I were both bored and within 5 minutes or so I quickly realized Sierra Burgess is a jerk. Cyrano has been told in different ways, many times, but despite the main character's insecurities, they are usually likable, nice people. Sierra, basically, likes this boy for his looks and 'cause he is out of her league...but expects him to overlook her looks, insecurities, manipulation, bad behavior, and shallowness. We are deluged by this on a regular basis of guy's in this roll, and it is not any more likable or acceptable when it's a girl.

I have been catfished. And I've had situations where I walked away and one where I overlooked it. People who do manipulative, deceiving things do so because they are manipulative, deceiving people. It's no different than a guy wearing scrubs to a grocery store, pretending to be a doctor to pick up women, and feeling justified with deceiving women to sleep with him because he thinks women like money. Women who deceive because of their insecurities do so because they are selfish and entitled, and think their insecurities somehow justify they should do better than they should. Bad people are bad people and they don't change or become good people suddenly because they get what they wanted. Typically, their behavior gets worse because they're insecure, know they lied and deceived to get what they wanted, and think they will lose that person, so, continue to lie, manipulate, deceive to maintain that relationship. It worked the first time, so, that becomes their regular MO. It's sociopathic.

And, why does Sierra deserve love more than Veronica? Everyone deserves love, and Veronica will face as many challenges in her own life as Sierra, even if they're different challenges, so, the justification that Sierra deserves it more 'cause she's not as pretty as Veronica...is problematic. It's just narcissism and immaturity. Overall, a poorly written fantasy script no different than Knocked Up or the Tao of Steve where fairly unlikeable people somehow feel entitled to people way out of their league. It doesn't promote brains win over beauty, this type of film promotes that attractive people who have it together should lower their standards to date shallow people who aren't willing to do anything to deserve them. Steve Martin had enough to win Roxanne in the end. He got caught up in a bad situation and went against his initial good judgement. Sierra was jerk from the start who manipulated everyone around her to get what she wanted. That's called sociopathy. I've experienced this personally and it does not end in a fairy tale romance where the person evolves.

Definitely one of my faves of the year, along with Ted Lasso and Mythic Quest. Basically, there are no flaws, which, is very hard to say for television or film these days. The writing is smart and funny, the casting and acting is great, you really care for the people, and some you grow to like more as their characters evolve.

Clearly this is a modern day Sixteen Candles homage, and it does a wonderful job of emulating the '80s John-Hughes-teen-movie humor, depth, and feel-good his films were known for. Devi does a fantastic job as the awkward, yet relatable Molly Ringwald type. Paxton is perfectly cast as the Jake Ryan, ultimate hunk. And Ben is the annoying Ted, whom you grow to love and have a deeper understanding for with each passing episode. Devi's mom is another stand out for me, as no role goes to waste in this show. Even the John McEnroe narration which you think would be annoying is very enjoyable. I also really like the music.

Mindy Kaling really stands out as some of the better comedy writing I've seen recently. I also enjoyed her film Late Night, which she wrote, produced and starred in. Studios should be more focused on good feel-good film and TV. I'm really over all these dark, heavy shows. It's like, studios have put all their energy into the anti-hero and superheroes, and comedy film and TV has gone to crap, other than a few good shows recently. I want to laugh and feel warm and fuzzy. Life has been heavy enough with quarantine. We need to get back to feel-good, hopeful entertainment like this.

Despite how unlikable Rosamund Pike's character is, you start to get into the film, despite her despicable actions. I mean, we all have mothers, so, you really hate her and want the worst for her. The script is well written, and it's well done, so, I was actually enjoying it for a bit...until the last 20-30 minutes, and, that's where it starts to unravel. The problem with sociopaths as your anti-hero is that it's really hard to wrap it up. Sure, with a TV show they've figured out the formula to make unlikable people likable by developing many facets to the character. This tries to make Rosamund's character likable by saying she does care about one person...but, that's just not enough. At that point I was like, "This is written by a dude." It just had dude all over it. I mean, there were some signs earlier on it was a dude, like, suddenly she's a lesbian, and, what does it really have to do with the character? But, I was willing to let some things slide. Like, despite the gratuitousness of it, it actually became a plus for me...but, again, it's just not enough for me to like her character.

Basically, it just kind of felt like a cop-out by the end, like, the writer didn't know how to finish it, then he wrapped it up in a bow. I just felt if he was going to work that hard on the first 90 minutes, why not make the whole thing work?. Grant it, it does all seem pretty unrealistic, but, I was willing, and hoping that this can not actually happen.

Also, the writer, basically must not have a soul. Like, sold out for a buck. You know some people are going to look at this and look up to her character in some way. I think the writer could have written a movie about a dark, terrible human being and still made it work by the end. The Wolf of Wall Street, the dude is human garbage but it's a good movie and has a good ending. The Founder is a really engaging movie and you actually admire Ray Kroc by the end, but then take a step back, and say, wait, Ray Kroc is garbage, but the movie still makes you like him, despite...you don't like him. Eat, Pray, Love is a great book, but by the very end, you're like, she's a terrible person...but, she has no awareness of how terrible she is, but you like the book anyway. So, it is possible to make terrible people likable, this just didn't do it. Maybe 'cause she messes with old people? I don't know. It would be hard to make someone who messes with babies or animals likable, so, sure, he had his work cut out for him ending this script, but, still, meet the challenge or do something else, dude.

I do like the show, it has a very American Horror Story feel, and is beautifully shot and acted, and the story is interesting despite there are moments where it kind of jumps around too much to flashbacks. I think I felt what the story was lacking was any hope. It's purely bleak. Which, can work, like Pan's Labyrinth or The Others. This to me was just verging on torture porn and exploitation, for the sake of shock, kind of like Hostel. But I only watched two episodes, and from the reviews, my feeling was right, and that it does got that way.

I just feel there is an over-saturation of the anti-hero and bleak shows. I get it, it sucks the viewer in but the end result after watching years of shows of people at their worst, it takes an emotional toll. I tend to think people are more negative these days because they watch a lot more television, and the most popular shows show people in a terrible light. Even Game of Thrones - terrible people, though, a brilliant show.

Scream is the perfect example of a horror movie that every actor in town was desperate to be cast in, and was a smash at the box office because it balanced darkness with light. Jordan Peele is a perfect example of a modern film maker who can set the audience up by making them laugh or feel good so they're vulnerable so it's a real sucker punch for the next scare. 8 or 10 episodes of bleak is just a big ask.

I'm sure the producers would just say that's the point, to show the bleak, rawness, but Eli Roth and Rob Zombie also defended their films, saying it was political commentary. And if any of the 10-star grandstanders actually took the time to read the low reviews, the majority of them are actually African-Americans whom felt traumatized by watching it and regret watching it. That in itself is its own social commentary - a bunch of white people running around to tell everyone how noble they are for liking something, while completely ignoring the people it actually affects.

But, again, from an artistic and acting perspective, I really like it. It would just be nice if we could get to a point where minorities can tell stories where the focus is not still about appeasing straight, white people. 'Cause, let's be real, the current theme in entertainment has little to do with awareness and everything to do with straight white people letting us now how bad they feel and how much power they have over minorities. The goal is to be scene the same, not still have them lording over us.

The minute we heard this was out we watched it that evening...and, didn't make it past an hour. Other than a few of McCartney's ad-lib zingers, there is literally nothing here. Bateman is kind of funny, but, he's not much a part of this. I've only ever seen Octavia in serious roles, and maybe that's where she belongs. An immediate thought was, "Why wasn't this Maya Rudolph?" Kirsten Wiig made sense, Monique, Tiffany Haddish - would have been great except the age difference. It would be like if they used Merle Streep in Heat instead of Sandra Bullock. Two funny women bantering back and forth could have at least made the weak script more palatable.

The script I've seen a million times, and, like, 1/3 of the film is them training to be superheroes. I mean, it just kept going on, and on, and on. Training is a 5-10 minute montage of scenes, tops. And, now that I think of it, there was no plot, simply cause and effect.

I'm not sure how the script got approved. My friend is producing a show there and hers sounds so micromanaged, which makes me wonder how Thunder Force got such a loosey goosey production. Maybe they bought it with a simple pitch, realized once the product was delivered, knew it was going to tank and just sort of squeezed it out? I don't know. It's a shame. Two great talents and an interesting concept put to waste. I mean, again, not exactly a rocket-science concept, but could have been at least fun.

What a fun, weird trip down memory lane. I'm so thankful someone had a camera, as, that wasn't really something you did back then, particularly not in LA clubs or parties. We had similar footage of similar people, but I'm sure at this point it's rotting in a closet somewhere. I wish there had been more '90s LA footage, as it seemed to be mostly late-80s LA, and NYC in the '90s, but I understand she had to wrap up the narrative after New York, to give it some kind of story cohesion.

I got misty eyed every time she showed Brandis. I know a lot of people who died by 35 from that crowd, and I don't think it's something you experience if you grow up outside of LA. The film was very cathartic. Really made me think a lot about back then. I have often looked back at some things and wished I could have done it differently. But when you're young, you're not really equipped with that knowledge. Drugs were definitely around, but thankfully they were not as prevalent as Soleil's experience. Really, it's a PSA, in a way, 'cause now that I think about it, the ones I know that passed or ended up losing it, got involved in drugs.

Is this relatable to the general public? I don't know. Maybe to people who grew up in the '90s. Since I knew or met half the people in the film and grew up in that scene, it was super relatable. Maybe more will come out like it? I don't know. Talking about what went on back then was not something you were supposed to do. It was very What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas. So, I'm glad Soleil did. It felt kind of like a childhood cleanse of remembering and moving on.

Definitely not any of the award-hype it promised. If you've seen any of the motion comics that came on the web 15 years ago, this is the same thing, but in a 90-minute movie form instead of broken down into 5-10 minute TV shorts, which was the old format. The story itself is reminiscent of a low-grade '80s B-movie, in that it's a bit out there and convoluted, which is why I would say this is not a modern B-movie. Basically, it's a whacky '80s time-travel B-movie for 12-yr-olds with elements of Saw, so, the two genres don't really work together. The writer should have picked one or the other and stuck with it. Like, if the writer would have cut out the Robocop or Tron, evil corporation, sophomoric cheese, and stuck with the evil-rich-dad thing, kept it standard horror, and been more inventive than ripping Saw, maybe Blumhouse or someone would have ponied up a few mill to produce the script. And with that version of the script tightened, and live-action, maybe I would have enjoyed it well enough.

I was at least willing to give the story a shot, since after the first painful 10 minutes, it started to peak my interest. It's just very hard to get into the After Effects puppet animation, especially when you know it's going to be for 90 minutes, rather than what it's typically used for, which is small doses. Whatever budget they had would have been better spent on a live-action short. I get the sense the writer or director was trying to show what they could do with a budget. The storyboard sequencing, expressed in comic book form was pretty good. I could picture it, and the music was good enough. The voice acting was good or bad, depending on the actor. The writing was mediocre...but, like I said, if some of the other elements are there, I can be perfectly entertained by a B-movie, since my expectations are generally low. So, a silly, mediocre script can work, just not with stiff, puppet animation.

To make this work, the story either needed to be excellent, or the animation had to be a lot better, or good live-action. As a whole, it didn't work for a full movie. I do appreciate the effort. I am a fan of animation, comics, and B-movies, it just didn't work for me. I would say for the director to keep at it, just maybe work harder at the basics before going the full movie route.

Should be added to the film school repertoire of how to write an indie film. Sure, it feels like a play because it is based on a play, but the dialogue and overall writing is superb. Acting, great, the overall look of the film, great. This is what an independent film should aspire to be. It was kind of along the lines of Whiplash, but more contained. I see nominations (Oscar? Emmy? Not sure what this qualifies as), and possible awards for writing, acting, and maybe music or production.

It had that thing I felt Selma was missing. Selma had powerful moments but then sort of flatlined for long chunks of the film of dialogue that wasn't particularly compelling or intriguing. The dialogue and scenes of the band members in the practice room were some of the best I've seen in a while. Levee and Toledo really stole the show from Viola Davis, with their dialogue back and forth and performance. Viola Davis was fantastic, but, we all knew she would be, but I was most sucked in by the dialogue in the band room, which I've not seen that kind of writing since Winnie Holzeman in the '90s. You have your failed attempts, like Little Woman, by Greta Gerwig, which is more like a Zack Snyder of, looks pretty but not much substance.

You have to wonder if the writer teamed up with Jordan Peele what delicious and interesting things they could create. Sure, two very different types of writers but why not give a studio film an actual soul?

It was also interesting from the perspective of how the entertainment industry has changed and progressed from where it was, and how it's also changed very little. You compare the old timers in the band as the ones who learned to "play the game," and the young Levee who thinks he's going to "be the game." That hasn't changed. Kind of, you learn to play the game or the game plays you, and rolls right over your corpse and continues on.

Overall, great film

I thought this would be a mini-series, but this is a multiple season show, so, more to come. The music is great, the clothes are great, and it's a very cute show. Kind of reminds me of The Partridge Family, which I loved to watch re-runs of when I was a kid. It starts off cute, and gets more serious as you see how controlling the father is. Not on a Michael Jackson's father level of control and abuse, but, still, makes you wonder where Selena's life would have gone if not for his wanting to channel his life through his children's.

It's interesting to see her life before she blew up, as most in America didn't know who she was until she blew up, seemingly over night, then was snuffed out in a tragic way. It's one of the stories that still, to this day, gets to me. The actress who plays Selena is great. She's cute, bubbly, and has a lot of charm, really selling the character. I really enjoy Suzette's character, and it's interesting to see A.B.'s struggle, dealing with all the pressure of the band and his father's expectations. I think the show does a good job of selling the music and the drama. It's not a super serious show. It's kind of on the light side with serious overtones. But most music biopics are so heavy, it's nice to have one that is fun, which makes you kind of forget where this is heading.

I'm sold. I do wish they would have a soundtrack with all the music aside from Selena's. I really enjoy the new versions of old, classic '80s songs. I think if they would have done that mixed with the Selena songs it would probably sell better with the American audience, and I think this show has a much broader appeal than just the Latinx market. Maybe they will for season 2? I think it's a good idea, as, I would like to listen to her music, but it's a little harder sell for me to listen to 18 songs in a language I vaguely know. You know, she's awesome but she's not quite Shakira.

The trailer really built this up as a feel-good studio rom-com, and the actual product was a kind of cute, meandering indie film with the sappy, cliche studio moments that twist your emotions. I didn't mind the storyline was very "done before," as, I've never seen a lesbian holiday film, and was hoping for a good one. It was Ok. No Home for the Holidays or The Family Stone, and no Imagine Me and You.

Kristen Stewart and Mackenzie Davis start out likable and cute, and you root for them, then things take a bad turn, but things wrap up nicely for them in the end, and you root for them again. The real hit of the film was Jane, the quirky sister, and, again, the cuteness of Stewart and Davis as a couple. Dan Levy had some funny moments but his character dialogue was really annoying in some spots, and funny in others. The LGBT community didn't fight for the right to marry so just a few years later some character can drone on about it being a patriarchal institution. Frankly, it was kind of disrespectful and out of touch.

For Clea Duvall's second film? It was decent. She's early in her directing career so I'm not going to be super critical. I'm glad it was made. I wish it had been better. It had the elements, just needed to be tightened. The middle was just a lot of stuff happening and not much storyline cohesion. It felt more like watching home videos of someone's life rather than a tidy story. I think the co-writer wrote, The Spy Who Dumped Me, and that film was similar - kind of funny, but just a bunch of stuff happening rather than a nicely paced story.

I'll probably watch it again and just fast forward to the scenes I like. Cute but not quite the fun holiday classic I was hoping for.

I was really looking forward to this, despite the skeptical trailer. This was one of my favorite comics as a kid, and I was willing to accept them going the horror route, despite this never being a horror comic book. My guess was they would do the Demon Bear storyline, given the elements in the trailer, and I was correct. My question is, why would they do a superhero movie with clearly so small a budget? What's the point? It's quickly clear by the lack of special effects, and what few they have, the mediocre to poor quality of FX, using the same locations, that this is on a Blumhouse style budget.

The casting is pretty good, other than Daniel Moonstar, who is absolutely nothing like her character. She doesn't look or act like her, her powers are not correct, and she doesn't even look Native American. And her acting is pretty weak, especially compared to playing next to 3 seasoned actors, and Roberto, who was actually pretty good, and spot on to his character. Even though the writers took a lot of liberties with Illyana's character, Anya Taylor-Joy looks a lot like her, and has the swagger to pull her off. Given Illyana was one of my favorite characters, it was fun to watch her play her. And though Sam Guthrie doesn't look quite like Sam, the Stranger Things actor really pulled it off. Maisie Williams, also great casting and acting, despite her lame werewolf effects.

This is the second time New Mutants has been made, the first time, an even worse TV pilot that also had no budget. Hopefully they'll bring Illyana on to the X-Men, as, I believe that was how she was originally introduced. She is by far one of the most complex and interesting characters in the Marvel universe, but, doubtful they will get it right, and it's abundantly clear that the studios don't really care about female superheroes.

This isn't the worst superhero movie made, but considering the majority are made with a budget over 100 million and are exceedingly average, it puts New Mutants in a slightly better light. Even with the terrible budget, they still could have written a better story. Unbreakable had very few effects and was a great film. Still, probably a much bigger budget than this one.

I'm glad they made a movie, I just wish it was better.

There used to be a lot of serial shows like The Outer Limits, Tales From the Darkside, or Monsters, which were ripoffs of their more successful counterparts, Twilight Zone and Tales From the Crypt, that weren't as good, but could be entertaining. This is in that vain...but not entertaining. It's immediately clear in the first episode that this show is trying to be different by saying each episode is a metaphor, and trying to be deep. Sure, but doesn't change the fact that they're still bleak, not particularly entertaining, not particularly thought provoking, and don't really "give" the audience anything. And despite trying to seem deep, the episodes are pretty shallow and don't have much beyond the metaphor.

The first episode, the story is interesting, and the acting is good. Each episode has actors you vaguely recognize, including this one. The metaphor in this one was change, that was obvious, but, didn't really go anywhere. Really, the first episode felt more like a vaguely interesting podcast than a show. Not much happens, so, ultimately it's a let down, 'cause, it's not particularly deep, it's not flashy, it's not thought provoking, so it doesn't really give the audience much to chew on, other than the reveal...but then you're like okay, and then it's over.

The second episode is equally bleak, depressing, etc., and starts off interesting, like the first...then, just gets boring, cliche, cheesy, etc. I can see having people in a room together rather than following text on a screen of a chat room is more interesting, but, they just sit and talk and don't do anything within the room, and don't say much that's interesting, so, those scenes were very stale and boring. And the common layman isn't going to know that Lone Wolf, which is the main character's screen name is some Nazi youth group, which we were informed by one in our group who was watching the show. If not for her input, we probably would not have put together this was supposed to be some alt-right knid of group he comes upon online. By the end, from what I could stay conscious through, it reminded me of when in the '80s the people who said if your kids listened to heavy metal music they would turn into Satan worshippers. That's what this felt like. That if your kids play MMO games online they'll become Nazis. So, what started out interesting became boring, ridiculous, and pointless. I was pretty sure the writer had never played MMO game, or maybe even video games, and more likely read an article in HuffPost about the dangers of 4 Chan, and not doing their research to understand, that was a site built for anime fans and is unmonitored, and that's it. It's like saying What'sApp was built for Nazis. Simply, people who don't know anything about technology, gaming, or psychology shouldn't be writing about them. At least do your research. It was extremtely hard to make the leap that a kid being sad and playing video games turns him into a metaphorical killer, as there is zero scientific data to back that, and is just as boogeyman as what the episode is about.

I can see the show is trying to be edgy and deep, it's just commonplace and shallow.

What I've learned from this is McG is a good director but he's only as good as his script. Which is why The Babysitter was a surprising, refreshing edition to the horror / comedy genre, and the sequel is kind of a let down. It has some funny moments, and McG's signature, flashy, music video style, but ultimately the plot is paper thin and all over the place, and essentially, a redo of the first movie. It's the same plot, most of the same characters, saying a lot of the same things, so, not particularly original. And the ending is cheesy and contrived. Basically, one person could write a better script in the original Babysitter, than 4 could write together in the sequel. Probably why Love & Monsters looks great, and Underwater was one of the most fun films of last year.

If I was 12, maybe this would go down for me as a cult classic, but, I'm not, so, it's just kind of meh. Judah Lewis is still very likable, and the new girl, his love interest is also likable. Not as good an actress as he is, but passable, and probably early in her career. That's another thing, Samara Weaving is a good part of the first film, and she has an endearing quality, like Lewis, so, you're pulled along for the ride. Essentially, you've got Judah and a bunch of side characters to carry the film, which makes it more like occasional fun vignettes, instead of an emotional ride. It's more like Dexter Morgan, sterile, fake emotion, so, audience is left not really caring whether Judah makes it out of this film alive. But I do need to mention that John and Juan get more screen time in the sequel, and they're pretty funny.

I did appreciate their Waxworks ambition, of a low budget that they make work. Like, the compositing matte scenes are pretty good for low budget. They would be garbage if this was Lord of the Rings or a big budget film, but probably most viewers wouldn't notice where scenery ends and a matte begins. The music is good...I think Bear McCreary, which did sound straight out of Halt and Catch Fire, but, hey, Paul Hasslinger doesn't get his due for a great show, so, I'm not mad at McCreary for ripping him a bit.

Overall, kinda fun, just don't set your bar as high as original, and maybe don't see them close together.

When we'd seen the original trailer we were underwhelmed. Then when it skipped the theaters and went to iTunes there was a new trailer that looked funny. We thought, this could be a trick, and it didn't test well and so the studio did a new trailer to entice us, or the original was just a bad trailer. It was a trick. This is not really a comedy and I wouldn't as go as far to call it a dramedy, either.

The casting is great and it's well acted. The directing is okay, I'll give Jon Stewart that, but the script is bad. Simply, he doesn't know how to write one. You have to wonder why most celebrities aren't required to do an assortment of short films before making a film, or go through some form of film school, as it's a lot of money to give to people who don't know what they're doing. There is a thin sliver of a plot, there's zero sub plot, zero character arc, basically, it's just a bunch of stuff happening with a bunch of people. You don't like Steve Carell's character because he's a huge jerk throughout the entire film, and you don't get to know anyone else in the film well enough to care about them, since it's mostly focused on Carell, who isn't an anti-hero either. He's just a smug guy who cares about his job and winning, and has some weird thing going with Rose Byrne, who is actually the only entertaining part of the film.

Really, if you watch 5 minutes of the film just to know what it's about, fast forward and watch the end, that's all that's really necessary. The end was good. It didn't make up for the first hour and twenty-five minutes, or however long it was, and it didn't really make the film any better, but it had a good ending. I get the feeling Jon Stewart came up with the idea for the end and sat down and wrote a generic script about people, and an equally generic script about basic insider look at politics. I'm sure he thought, somehow because he's Jon Stewart, this would make the script great. And maybe that's your answer about why the hero of the film is so smug. It seems that if Jon Stewart took his idea and gave it to Adam McKay, maybe this could have been good. Adam is one of the few I've seen that can take an intellectual topic and not make it sound like Hollywood's rudimentary version of it.

Maybe Stewart should focus on directing and give up writing. Take an acting class, because if not for using great actors in this film, that probably would have been a mess too. At the very least, get a competent writing partner to take his ideas and make them interesting, likable, and work. The end and set up was interesting and I could see how it could have worked, it just didn't. There needed to be a better script and someone on set asking obvious questions like: don't farmers work 16 hour days? Why would he want or have time to become a mayor? Why did Debra Messing suddenly disappear and she's replaced by a Natasha Lyon look-a-like? If Steve Carell is such a big politico who can afford to fly around in jets, how does he have time to focus on one future mayor in a town of 5,000, which will make absolutely no difference in actual polling? Etc.

I love Anna Kendrick but I've simply hit my wall of seeing much younger women with old, or old, gross men. So, though this was the only Quibi show I thought it might be okay, based on the trailer, after a few minutes of the show realizing they're expecting me to believe not only is Anna Kendrick dating Donal Logue, who is 20 years older and appealing to no women, but he's also got a doll on the side because "she's" not good enough for him. I mean, give me a break. Are we living in the 1950s? Trying to push him as a Hollywood writer changes nothing. A smart girl like her would still never date him, and Hollywood guys like that date D-list actresses with huge, fake you know whats.

I only watched a Quibi show after reading an extensively negative article in The New Yorker because my attention was peaked, like a train wreck of, "How bad is it?" I think everyone thought Quibi would be bad. If Sophie Turner can't convince me to watch it, Jeffrey Kattzenberg sure as heck won't. I think the thing that really struck with me in that article is how Kattzenberg in a wide sweep took full credit for all those Disney and Dreamworks films despite there being hundreds of names credited to each one, which doesn't include the hundreds who work on those films who don't get a credit. How unprogressive. Another was Kattzenberg saying the channel "would" be progressive and then taking a pitch with Gal Gadot who said in her meeting she wanted to do projects empowering to women and girls and he interrupted her to say she could be their next Jane Fonda workout girl. And here, yet again, we see with Dummy, this network is in the dark ages trying to program women that they deserve less and are worth less.

And, the whole 8-10 minute concept is dumb. It works for some cartoons, but that's it. And TV, it's simply a commercial break between 11 minute installments. It's not like Quibi is rocket science. And as far as "premium" channel Kattzenberg promised, I'm not getting that from trailers I watched. Quibi is more Hallmark Channel kind of quality that dumped a bunch of money into A-listers. That's another thing, Anna Kendrick, an A-list star gets cast against a C-list star who is 20 years older and attractively challenged? (hey, it's nicer than saying ugly). This was going out of fashion in the '90s and yet, still, here we are. But I guess that's what happens when you have a 70-yr-old exec who claims he knows what millennials want more than they do. I wonder if he'll still be getting that $125 million severance pay when he gets fired from his own network.

I think Josh Gad is funny as an actor but this is the 3rd animation pet project I've seen from a famous actor who doesn't seem to understand that animation is not the same as live-action. It's a completely different art form. It does have the creator of Bob's Burger on it but it's pretty obvious he's not running this ship, other than it using the same character design style. The narration doesn't work. I understand Josh Gad wants to be part of the project but all the narration chisels away at the limited time for a 22-minute+ show. I like Kristen Bell, as always, and Stanley Tucci's character is kind of funny, and the dad in the show has a good singing voice, though, I don't particularly care for his character or the family's storyline, other than that. Kind of bland.

I do like the idea of a singing animated series I just don't think this hit the mark. Some of the numbers were catchy others were not. I give it points for originality and the animation is nice, it just won't be a reason I keep my Apple+ subscription.

I'm a big fan of the horror / comedy genre and have seen my share of teen movies. Basically, this is a Night of the Comet meets Road Warrior ripoff adding nothing particularly original or fun. The acting and writing is weak. The narration is a bad choice that doesn't work that seems more appropriate for a book, or something more appropriate for a narration. Apparently it was based off a graphic novel, which probably explains the narration but not why the TV show modeled that. Seems like they were also trying to ripoff a bit of Scott Pilgrim. Basically, I don't know why this is a show. Not the worst thing I've ever seen, but not particularly imaginative or fun. I mean, John Hughes can take a mundane subject and his writing and directing turned them into classic movie gems. This is not that.

Admittedly, my feeling on broadway musicals is I either love them or I'm totally bored in them. I can't say I've ever felt lukewarm about one. People have repeatedly assured me I would love this, just as I was assured I would love Phantom of the Opera...and, I didn't. I appreciate all the creativity, time, and effort, and maybe if I had seen this in NYC instead of on Disney+ mayyyybe I would feel differently? And maybe if I'd seen it with the cast that replaces Lin Manuel and his trio who clearly are not stage actors, maybe I would like this. I do typically like the dude who plays Yohan in Black-ish, I just felt him, Lin, the guy who played Burr, and their fourth guy, were not captivating, and I couldn't understand half of what they were saying.

On the plus, the women were great. They had spectacular voices, colorful outfits that popped on stage, and they had dynamic presence. The King and Washington were also great, and it was apparent by their performances they were stage pros with dynamic voices and stage presence. The title song is catchy and I liked that performance. I liked their Zoom performance of the title song on Some Great News. I thought that was great.

But, I also have never enjoyed a broadway play put on the big screen like a play...with the exception of Chorus Line. I walked out of Les Miserables movie, hated Chicago movie. I like when they turn it into a story with the music, like, Rent, Mama Mia (which I thought I would hate), Little Shop of Horrors, Grease, Annie (both versions), etc.

If someone paid for my ticket and the trip to NYC, I would consider seeing Hamilton live and giving it an honest shot, but I would much rather see the Tina Turner story or Sponge Bob, to be quite honest. I think a hip hop biopic, I would see that. Hip hop revolutionary history...eh. I would rather watch a History Channel in-depth of Hamilton or deep dive historical podcast. There just seems so many fun avenues to present hip hop into Broadway. I did like the diverse cast. Broadway, Hollywood and publishing should work on being more accepting and doing more of that. And when I say more accepting I mean showing POC and LGBTQ in a positive light and not in a way to highlight how benevolent straight white people are or just how bad they feel about oppressing us. I think I've had about enough of that.

If you're looking for a show like the Good Place, but not funny, clever, or original, or San Junipero, but not romantic, heartwarming, and has no depth, this is the show for you. While I didn't feel an urgency to turn it off immediately, I also couldn't understand what I was watching. It's literally a rip-off of two great shows, blended together, with a straight dude who borders on douchie as your lead, as opposed to the lovable Eleanor Shelstrop, or the endearing Yorkie.

I got more the impression this was a test pitch for the networks that didn't get picked up, and Amazon picked it up and said, "Nah, we don't want to spend any more money, let's just keep this pilot as is rather than reshoot. People will watch it 'cause they like your other shows, so we don't care." It just seems more like a rough draft and not a ready-for-TV product.

Also, a good portion of the 10s I'll wager are fake reviews. They're kind of easy to spot paid reviewers and the trolls since their reviews are always 10 or 1, and they throw in an occasional 9 or 2 so they seem less fake. It's especially easy to tell when a show just comes out because there's fewer reviews and easy to comb through. I found a fake review that gave this a good score as well as another movie I was reviewing. I know it was fake 'cause all his reviews were gibberish and in 4 years the person had over 12,000 reviews, which, is impossible to watch that much content. That's about 10 per day. Not to mention, like I said, every review was gibberish and titled, "Review." And majority of the reviews that seem genuine and have actual details to indicate they actually saw this show, on average, hover around a 5 score.

If I were to list what is wrong with this show, it would take a while, thus why I think it was a test pilot, because I'm surprised so many of the choices in this show didn't get axed. Like, I would keep maybe 20-30% of the show, and would have had the rest either re-written, re-cast, cut out, re-shot, 'cause, it's overall a pretty weak pilot. The only thing I found kind of clever or interesting was the muffin glitch. Other than that the whole thing was, been there, done that. Nothing clever, and so many things didn't make sense.

Another huge thing is the writer(s) clearly know nothing about tech. None of the tech made sense or worked. It would have been simple to ask a 12-yr-old how Fortnite works and would have had a more informed picture of what this world is. To not investigate tech for a tech-based show is pretty poor writing. And the psychobabble. Don't try to drop philosophy toward the end of the show if you know absolutely nothing about it. Like, her psychobabble speech made zero sense and if she's this show's Cheedy, it's no wonder she lives in a closet-size apartment with a roommate. And what was up with that? She works in tech and she's broke? Whatever, it would take too much time to list every problem with this show and I'm sure no one wants to read that.

Watched it last night and been listening to the soundtrack all day. I wasn't sure what to expect, and braced myself for it being terrible, but it was surprisingly fun and an all around good time. It's a musical. You should know that off the bat. I wasn't sure from the trailer which direction it would go, but it's your simple, '80s boy meets girl plot, with music, choreography, bright colors, LOTS of '80s clothes I remember from the time period. All in all, it was a surprising, utter delight.

The complaints I've seen thus far on other sites (since only one other review on here so far, but give it time for the trolls to appear) all complain that it's not the original, and don't seem to have watched this one, or only watched 10 minutes, and are complaining that it's not an identical movie, and how dare they make this a musical. Like, get over yourself. It was 35 years ago and I couldn't tell you a single thing that happened in the original movie even though I saw it, other than Nick Cage was in it, and I recognized the cameo from the original girl in this version, once I saw her. Popular '80s actress...but, can't remember her name right now. Maybe Debbie something. The original Valley Girl was a popular movie, but not like it was Sixteen Candles, Ferris Bueller, Breakfast Club, etc. It was fairly generic boy meets girl. I liked the original but didn't think it was as great as others said at the time.

The whole cast was great, music, choreography, the hair, clothes, everything was fairly on point. It was a little more colorful than the time period, but it's a musical and they only had 1 hour, 40 minutes to say everything they wanted to, so I understand the explosion of colors and looks. It's basically, Disney for adults. If you like Grease, Mamma Mia, or grew up on High School Musical, you'll like this. It definitely doesn't have the budget of La La Land, so, don't come in expecting that. It's just a fun, musical '80s romp with heart, which is pretty much what is needed on month 2 of quarantine. Definitely lightened the COVID woes.

And the movie is pretty authentic. I lived in Hollywood in 1990, and it was a dump back then, and moved to The Valley in 1991 and lived there 20 years. It was pretty magical in '91. It was pretty, safe, nice, a lot of young people lived there, and was a great time. Hollywood got a makeover in the late '90s and was nice for a while, and now LA in general is high prices, high crime, ghastly traffic, nothing works, and is a regular mess. So, if you judge LA from what it is now and think that's not what it was like back then? Wrong. Even the grocery store in Hollywood was called Rock 'N Roll Ralph's, 'cause all those types lived and hung out there. The skyrocketing prices drove away all he creativity and fun of that time period. So, enjoy a little time capsule of what was.

A movie I will definitely watch repeat viewings.

It started out sooo good. The first 3 episodes were great. I thought for sure this would be Oscar worthy...then, it took a hard dip by episode 4, turning into Make-A-Wish foundation, and by episode 5, it was a PSA announcement. We shut it off mid-episode 'cause we were bored, and I was calling out every plot twist before it happened it had become so predictable. It was like Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan wrote the first 3 episodes, got bored, and told their 22-year-old writer's assistants to finish the show.

I feel like Ryan Murphy is at that point in his career where he can get anything greenlit so now he's writing entirely for himself and doesn't care what the audience or his fans want. It's a shame. The writing started out so strong. Imagine the first half of this show like Glee season 1 and the second half like Glee, the final years, and you have an idea of where the writing went on this show. Too bad.

I saw the documentary that they ripped the gas station / Dreamland part of the show, and that was fun, despite they took that guy's life and probably didn't pay him. There's zero tension in the show after episode 3. It's just wish fulfillment, where everyone gets what they want, like a pre-school show for kids, so, despite the strength of the first few episodes you stop caring about the characters because you can predict everything that will happen so what's the point of seeing it? No mystery. No struggle after episode three, they suddenly magically get everything they want. There's no reason to watch until episode 7 because mid-episode 5 it's an easy guess where it's going, which we confirmed by reading reviews.

I just don't know how Murphy went from America Crime Story: Versace, to this. Such a great idea, and so magical, and it just fell apart, as if they stopped caring halfway through.

Rock Hudson was great. That was one bright spot in the show, aside from the initial writing and the production value. He was endearing and vulnerable. You really root for him, despite the show falling apart around him. And was interesting to see Jim Parsons as a villain after 12 seasons of him playing Sheldon. I'm sure he loved playing that. The entire cast is likable, it just would have been nice for them to be consistent as opposed to shifting their characters completely and unrealistically halfway though. Again, bad writing.