Reviews

Season 2 is almost insulting. They shot the season in Czech Republic pretending it to be Buenos Aires and Argentina in general. It looks NOTHING like Buenos Aires and they didn't even bother hiring 1 actor that could speak like anyone from Buenos Aires or any other part of Argentina. Mexicans, Spaniards, Czech Republic, terrible, terrible accents. This was an incredibly lazy production, they should be ashamed. Spanish is the second most spoken language (by native speakers); they should be taking that into account before trying to pull such s***. Impossible to suspend disbelief. Amazon, try harder, try a little bit at least.

I don't take offense, but someone certainly should. How can you have such talented actors performing brilliantly in a production where the plot and very same premise are childishly conceived in their implausibility? Furthermore, the ending looks like a cliffhanger attempt which any half-witted viewer could find aggravating. I give it a 6 and not a -maximum- of 4 because of the performances. Often you get shows that disappoint you in the first season but find redemption in the following ones. In this case, unfortunately, it seems quite obvious that a second season would only make things worse. What a shame.

This is not funny, not a documentary, intellectually insulting. This is like the liberal version of Ann Coulter. I'm saying this as someone who's not American (I'm from Buenos Aires), so there's no American-based political bias here. This is lady seems to be ignorant, stupid and deranged. You say edgy? I say cringe. George Carlin was edgy AND funny; she's none of those. How is this classified as a documentary? You can already tell the whole production was in hands of dimwits. Absolute crap.

It was good, it was Dexter good, but I have to agree with other reviewers: the finale is really bad. I had read reviews before watching the series and I couldn't believe the finale would really be that bad. The story could have gone in any direction, but it seems it went in the worst possible one. The finale just doesn't make sense, it doesn't add up; it's not only unrealistic, but it also doesn't seem to be justified even in the realms of an isolated piece of fiction. Everything was really good, but the finale was just bad writing.

Poor script, terrible performances and a wildly inaccurate, even for fiction based on facts. Too many anachronisms. Another review is titled " disappointingly melodramatic interpretation": Nietzsche actually was quite a melodramatic figure, but this film takes the melodrama too far and I feel it ridicules Nietzsche. It doesn't look like a film, but a poorly performed stage play.

Almost all the medical staff at that hospital seems to be getting increasingly neurotic, irrational and more focused on themselves and/or their personal battles in search of the fulfillment of a fantasy that their are godly righteous and inherently good human being despite the fact they are, oh yes, so humanly prone to err. I just had enough after Park replies something to a patient which is a sad portrayal of how society is starting to confuse kindness with lack of sincerity and dishonesty. If what park said to the patient was said by a real doctor, that would be straight up unethical. The patient tells Park that Park thinks he's fat and ugly. The patient is obese and body shaming is a despicable thing, but a doctor would be highly irresponsible if he replied like Park did: "I don't think you are fat or ugly". There's a million ways of winging that dialog without hurting a person's feelings, but saying that and obese person isn't fat is not only irresponsible medically AND socially, it's also incredibly offensive to be so blatantly phony. I haven't watched the Korean original version of the show, but this version of the show started flatlining before even the 4th season started. Dr. House was great (regardless of the fact that it was medically risibly inaccurate), but this series from the same creator is, well, pretty bad (or at least it got pretty bad quite some time ago).

I love Steve C., but this is crap. It's not funny, it's horribly written, badly performed and I'm oblivious to whether direction and edition have any merit at all. Bad jokes flatly and awkwardly delivered. No identifiable chemistry between characters. No character development. A fictional government agency that resembles a hybrid between NASA and the Air Force is ran by the most intellectually and emotionally challenged people on Earth. An "Office" can be run by such misfits and it's fun because it's intelligent humor. Subtract the humor and add a completely ridiculous scenario and you got this.

It's not only a Seinfeld ripoff, but it's really bad. Performances are terrible and the material is the same as his actual standup, but the delivery is just much worse, rather awful.

Being a Spanish native speaker from Argentina, only regional idioms might be something I don't get. Still, I find this production extremely unfunny. This, at best, might be like that friend who can't stop making dirty jokes. The comedy of this piece relies solely on simple, unimaginative puns that aren't vulgar enough to offend anyone and yet aren't intelligent enough to make you crack a smile. This isn't intelligent comedy at all. I love a good dirty joke whenever it's an intelligent and well-delivered one (one by Norm Macdonald, for example). I give it two stars because I can't find one positive aspect to this, but I can recall a lot of worse performances.

Seinfeld is one of the most hardworking professionals in his industry and for that reason I will be deducting points from 10 rather than looking for pluses.

10 - 1 = 9. Because this was rather unfunny or as funny as you could expect a funny friend to be and not someone who makes a living out of being funny.

9 - 1 = 8. Because the material is extremely outdated and I could only imagine someone finding it amusing if it was done in the late 90's or early 2000's.

8 - 1 = 7. Because even though Seinfeld set the bar higher for observational comedy in the past, all of this seems to be a parody of himself or something performed by some hack attempting to imitate Seinfeld with a very lame performance. Improve yourself, be better than your past self, don't be a pathetic shadow of your golden years.

7 - 1 = 6. Because the delivery was very bad. I don't know what happened, but I found all that screaming very annoying. At times I thought he was trying to sound like Jerry Stiller acting as George's father. It wasn't his usual delivery and it sounded forced, especially since the material was far from innovative or outrage-inducing.

Jerry's still one of the greatest, but he should avoid resting on his own laurels and up his game or retire.

If not many things make you savagely laugh out loud anymore, give this a try. Norm was the funniest guy alive. Original material, superb delivery, always candid, never hateful: one of a kind. Rest in peace.

This kid is particularly unfunny. His material is bad, his delivery is arguably worse. He has no personal style and he seems to be trying to copy the worst of each bad comedian of his generation. It looks like he thinks it's cool and funny to be vulgar. Many of my favorite comedians can be very obscene, but the more obscene, the bigger the genius. This dude is a hack and can't pull it off.

Unintelligent, unoriginal, not an ounce of wit, just embarrassing.

This flick is absolute garbage. I've rated it with 3 stars because, despite of it all, I can actually think of a couple of worse movies. So why would you watch this? I can only think of one reason. But first, how to do it.

1) Don't read any more reviews.

2) Watch the movie, start counting how many things are wrong with the plot/writing, feel some outrage, lose count of the goofs, stop caring.

3) Come back here and read other users' reviews, especially the ones which enumerate the absurdities in the movie (for example, the one titled "Things we learned from Army of the Dead"). Have a couple of decent laughs. If you had a first laugh, keep reading. It gets better, since you'll find more and more F-ups you hadn't noticed before. But don't hate yourself for not having noticed all the goofs; it was a natural, self-defensive reaction of your brain to go into some kind of drowsy mode.

Oh, the reason? Some of the reviews are hilarious, especially if you read them after watching the movie, not before.

I always thought Jonah Hill was a good actor, but oh, boy. Superb acting on his part and the rest of the cast as well. The series is just spotless, enough said.

Well documented and beautifully produced documentary film of interest to anyone curious about the history of basketball or immigrant minorities in the United States. Worth highlighting is the quality of the photographic material provided.

I finished the last season of this show a couple of years ago and yet I really feel I need to write a review about what I consider to be a work of cinematographic art, as well as the best TV series I've ever watched.

1. The acting: superb. I can't think of a character that was less than perfectly portrayed. Each and one of them was of a completely different nature and, nevertheless, constantly spot-on, never overdoing it, never attempting to betray what seems to be the true essence of the character. And believe me, these are complex, all too humanly ambivalent and realistically evolving characters. Thanks to Mad Men I've discovered a bunch of brilliant actors.

2. Historical recreation and background. Being myself in advertising and having achieved a decent level of expertise and experience in international media planning, copywriting, creative direction, analytics and account management, I was blown away by the degree of precision with which the show succeeded in portraying the finest nuances of many historical facts, the dynamics of the industry, the professional chemistry inside and among agencies, the moral standards and the psychological complexity of the characters. If you loved Mad Men just like I did, consider reading "The Real Mad Men". The book goes over the real events and people that inspired the show and it's as fun as the series. I had read the book before watching the show, but I suggest proceeding inversely.

3. The language, the humor, the psychology, the references. English is not my native language, but my comprehension of what is said at any given time is complete and not limited to the realm of literal interpretation. I'm not bragging, but I do think you need to feel really comfortable with this language in order to appreciate not only the wit and beauty of the dialog, but also of that which is not said. Reading between the lines and grasping the truly complex nature of the characters and events presented in this show was one of the most exciting things to me and this led me to the conclusion that anyone oblivious to these little realizations might not enjoy the show all that much.

4. Human, all too human. After Pete's first appearances in the plot you can't help but be annoyed by him, and yet only after a couple of episodes, while he's still proving himself a douche, you can tell you'll end up loving him. The same goes for most of the characters. Ultimately you can't help feeling empathy for most of them because, notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of them are hugely immoral individuals, they succeeded throughout the show to reveal their most inherently human nature. Well, Harry might be the exception, but that also served a purpose.

5. One of the least anachronistic shows I've ever seen. If someone felt offended by the various depictions of that era's sexism, racial segregation or other subjects, they should reconsider their interpretation. TV and films usually narrate events full of extreme attitudes towards a multiplicity of social groups; sometimes it's extreme hate, other times we observe dogmatic political correctness which instead of helping achieve integration, perpetuates an image of minorities as if they were bound to be hopeless victims. MM doesn't go down those roads. My opinion on this subject is not based on personal experience (I'm 33 and I've only been a couple of times to the States as a tourist) and yet I'm convinced they've captured in the most objective and complete fashion the different shades of attitudes and ways that probably were at the core of New York's everyday life during a critical decade of transition towards a new model of society.

6. Do you remember Roger always being jealous of David Ogilvy, the Godfather of Advertising? Hilarious. Read Confessions of an Advertising Man. You'll love it.

7. In case you didn't know, the denomination "Mad Men" comes from the fact that most of the top NY ad agencies where on Madison Avenue and admen (and adwomen!) back in the sixties were often pretty wild and eccentric.