Reviews

The first part of Librarian was a good project (a lot of humour, pretty good plot, Sonya Walger great as Nicole No one) and I really enjoyed it. Fortunately they've made a sequel, unfortunately they've taken completely different author for the scenario which was a huge mistake.

In the second part the casting wasn't impressive (especially Gabrielle Anwar didn't fit in), the plot was weak, another huge mistake was moving toward the family themes (his father, uncle, etc.) and together with Nicole No one character the chemistry was gone and the humour just wasn't good enough.

It was a good try, but creators missed the first movie example by miles.

In my opinion the Jury Duty isn't as bad as people say/write - I actually liked the idea for the script, but the main problem is... the main actor. I just can't stand Pauly Shore's overacting in any of his movies, which is sad that he spoiled this promising idea with his lack of skills.

I mean what bad can be said about Tia Carrere, Stanley Tucci, Brian Doyle-Murray or Abe Vigoda? They all are great, but why oh why they had to hire Pauly Shore? They could hire anyone (well, almost anyone, I don't think Rob Schneider or Adam Baldwin would make much good) in his place and the project would turn out well.

I've just seen the whole series available on DVD and I'm really surprise that: 1. I haven't heard about this series before 2. anyone could find this racist or politically incorrect 3. British don't seem to find it funny 4. it was canceled so quickly

I simply loved the series - all the characters are sympathetic (even the principal played by Zara Nutley), the writing was great, dialogs funny and the whole show very entertaining.

Perhaps some people only see stereotypes in the characters, but I think they were all presented in good light and the differences between them created space for the humour. Pity they didn't have chance to continue the series...

Perhaps it's just me, but this movie seemed more like sequel or follow-up than the separate project. Why? When it was filmed (just few years after the war) most of the viewers probably knew why Rommel was so famous, why his death was so important to Allied, why he was Hitler's favorite general, but now, 50 years later, it isn't so obvious anymore.

"Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel" is a decent war movie, but it's just isn't in any way explained how Rommel did get his nickname, what was he doing that Allied considered him as their best general, why their soldiers were so afraid of Afrika Korps? That's what is missing in this movie - we see his fame, his character, his way to treat soldiers and enemies, but f.e. we also see that Hitler was complaining about his achievements in Africa, calling him coward, etc. So, we're missing the big picture here - it is "The Story of Rommel", but unfortunately the "Desert Fox" part is missing.

I really enjoyed "Candid camera" with Dom DeLuise and I was surprised to see that after the years Suzanne Somers have becomed the co-star of the show. But that was the only positive side of the show - the whole studio, the intro, the hosts - all that give the new meaning to the word "pompous".

Well, that would be OK if the materials weren't so cr*ppy - I mean come on, the best you can do is show few men that have problem with getting ketchup out of the bottle, Suzanne Somers walking with Halloween basket in July, ice cream place that sells only vanilla...? I've seen few episodes and each time it was horrible. They were posing like it's the greatest show ever and then fill the time with scenes so dull that I really felt embarrassed to watch. Even the people in them looked bored and that just can't be good.

So far I really enjoyed Michael Palin's travels, but since some point they begun to look rather like postcards from the world than real documentaries. "Around World in 80 days" was spectacular, "Pole to pole" was just amazing, but when I started to watch "Full Circle" and then "Sahara" one question kept popping into my mind - "what's the hurry???". I mean in "80 days" and "Pole to pole" it was obvious - travel arrangements were pressing on the hurry, but on Sahara?? Come on...

Later "Himalaya" was step in right direction - a lot of great views, a lot of people stories, different views on the world. Since I live in Poland I was exciting when I first heard that Palin is gonna make documentary about Poland, although it was rather strange when I heard he is gonna spend only 2 weeks in our country... Then I became more and more disappointed when I found out that first informations weren't exactly correct - he is gonna make trip through few other countries from Eastern Europe, f.e. Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria... Still this looked like a good idea, but when I found out that he is gonna spend 2-3 weeks in ALL THE COUNTRIES not in a single one strangely comedy title "If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium" popped into my mind...

Palin have done what many people failed to do - show the world of today not like travel brochure, but simply as it is - with common people, not so spectacular hotels, etc. But "New Europe" is I think just too much, I mean in Poland there are about 40 million people, Poland is larger than Great Britain (Romania is as large as UK) and you really want to tell me that you can show Poland in 2 days? And Hungary, Romania or Bulgaria have even more complicated cultures than we do...

Let's see - it was just like making documentary about UK and show that they eat haggis, breed sheep, wear vests and have queen. Perhaps they do something else or even have some history, but that's all we had time for...

"New Europe" was a big disappointment for me.

I know what some people will say - it's not "Fawlty Towers", it's not "Monty Python", so it's can't be that good. And here's where they will be wrong - England have produced at least dozen great comedy series on level that none of the US series would ever reach.

And "The Detectives" is one of those series - funny, entertaining and not too pushy about the humor - that's all I ask from comedy :) Despite that fifth season was on a little bit lower level still this is one of my favorite comedy series. Perhaps because there isn't unnecessary vulgarisms or boring "action" scenes - just simply stories with plenty of memorable quotes and hilarious situations.

If you haven't seen it you don't know what you're missing!

When I first saw "Dad's Army" on BBC Prime I thought that this is really corny one and since it was going on and on with only few laughs I gave up. Then after few weeks when I put BBC Prime again it was "Dad's Army" again, same episodes and again it wasn't as funny as other British comedy series, so again I gave up.

But lately I've seen the whole series from the beginning (since black & white episodes) and this time it all finally began to make sense. Finally I've seen the light and what kind of approach you need to like this series - usually it isn't LOL-funny, but with more subtle kind of humor. After seeing the whole series even the episodes I've seen before and didn't like make sense and I know what was funny about it.

Now I can say that "Dad's Army" is really great series with wonderful ideas, great cast and leaves something within you - now when I watch some films with people in uniforms I usually expect to hear "do you think it's wise", "stupid boy", "they don't like up them" or "permission to worry you, sir".

A really "must see" kind of TV history!

When I had first glance at this series I presumed that this is some old American series about brave lawyer who fight for their clients, fight the system or do some other out-of-reality tasks. But after just few scenes I realized that this can't be old - there are too many modern things. Then I realized this can't American series - it's interesting. And at the end I realized that this can't be about lawyers - it's entertaining.

I don't know how to describe this series in other words than "great idea, good actors, interesting cases", etc. It's hard to point out any downsides of this series - it reminds me of US series "Queens Supreme" (which died too early) where you can feel that this is the real thing and real people in court with their real life problems.

And on the other hand creators have left aside lawyers private lives which would make the series sink instantly (like in Grey's Anatomy). Instead of the my-sad-personal-life stories there are loads of humor in scenes which makes the whole idea work just great, f.e. when Nancy Dao lost her first case:

NANCY (to her client): You see what you did? You made me lose my first case! And... to him! I hate you!

JUDGE: May we proceed to the sentence?

NANCY: Whatever...

By strange coincidence I've started to watch this move straight after Brice de Nice and the good thing was that not many movies could be worst than Brice de Nice, so I was really looking forward for something better which would make me forget this horrible flop.

Unfortunately OSS-117 again left me disappointed - I don't know, maybe it's just problem with translations, but since "Diner de Cons" I haven't seen ANY French comedy that I would call really good. Even when I look at the reviews on IMDb only people from France are giving the OSS-117 high notes...

For me this movie didn't really work - in some parts is as funny as real Bond movies, in others jokes were a little bit too predictable or too corny.

"Missing pieces" is just one of those movies that you know isn't a masterpiece, but still can't help not to watch :) It is light comedy, with pretty good plot, entertaining and full of gags.

Monty Python fans won't be amazed by this display of Idle's talents, but together with Wuhl they make good pair of "losers" that seek there own breakaway from their current lives when they start to run after "it".

This movie is somehow great fun to watch with good performances from Eric Idle and Robert Wuhl. If you've enjoyed Idle in "Nuns on the run" this movie shouldn't disappoint you.

The beginning was pretty exiting - to see Hugh Laurie in such role was something to look for - but after just few episodes House MD became predictable and pretty much boring.

Are the writers using the same script routine over and over again? I mean it is always like that: 1. someone collapses 2. they come up with first diagnosis which is wrong 3. they come up with second diagnosis which is wrong 4. and finally - the third diagnosis, but the treatment is risky 5. they live happily ever after

I mean is this really the best they can produce?? Many people say that this series are hilarious - where???? Becker was hilarious, House is just trying to be funny.

House is just a copy of dozens of other characters like that - as I called Becker, Doctor Martin, guy from Scrubs, etc. There isn't much to talk about - it's just another show.

I really liked the idea for this movie, cast was great (especially David Duchovny and Judy Greer), but when I was expecting the plot to move in the most interesting parts of the TV series production suddenly the end titles showed up...

"The TV Set" is really good project, but unfortunately the creators have only highlighted the process and left a lot of comic potential untouched. I know there is the rule "always leave them hungry", but in this one they've left me starving :)

But above all this it worth watching movie, especially if you want to find out how your favorite TV series were created.

I've heard a lot how great this series are, so finally I took a look at Comedy Central and after about dozen episodes I have absolutely no idea what Scrubs is supposed to be - it isn't funny, so it can't be comedy, there isn't any plot, so it can't be drama, there isn't anything entertaining about this show, so... what is it???

Few people just keeps walking around, talking and do other rather boring things and that's about it - that's the whole show... I know, people say that "you have to get it", but there isn't much to get - it's simply boring, full of clichés about hospital and completely uninteresting private lives of few people.

UPDATE - after watching ALMOST ALL EPISODES I can say that I understand what the creators were trying to achieve (I would call it a spin-off of Drew Carey show with wacky humour), but for me it didn't work. I really laughed TWICE in about 100 episodes (f.e. when JD was explaining to Janitor when he saw his penis), but it is really poor record for comedy series.

Well, I've heard that this show was really popular in US and I was looking forward to see it. The first few episodes weren't particularly good, but I can't recall any good comedy series that start from high level (f.e. Wings had poor start).

Unfortunately so far I've watched almost all of first 5 seasons of "Everybody Loves Raymond" and I'm still waiting for the good stuff to come. Main character behaves as jerk all the time, all his wife is doing are sad faces after his stupid ideas, his family is much more annoying than creators have planned it (except for his brother who so far had most of good quotes) and it seems that "holy crap" by his father is really the highlight of this series...

There are US comedy series that I love (f.e. Caroline in the City, Wings, Becker, Seinfeld), there are some that I respect (f.e. King of Queens, Married with children) but in compare to them "Everybody loves Raymond" is rather crappy, boring and predictable as hell. There were literally FEW good jokes in those 120 episodes that I've watched and I simply can't take this s*** no more.

I live in Poland, I saw most of Wajda's movies and still I don't get why everyone thinks that he is such great director when I find pretty much all his movies poorly narrated and not easy to fully understand "Kanal" is good example of my problem with Wajda's movies - he recreates images from his own past that he knows well and don't bother that the viewer may know less than he is, f.e.

1. all the young rebels were scouts or just children from Warsaw, but there were few officers and we don't know if they were soldiers or just seniors scouts

2. they were receiving orders to defend this part of the city but we don't know from who, we don't know if the HQ knew their situation, etc

3. there is no any sight of Germans except for a tank and mobile machines at the beginning, but there is no explanation why those machines were dangerous or what number of Germans were attacking this part of the town, how big was that part of town

4. they were trying to move to Srodmiescie (district of Warsaw), but we don't know how far was it, we don't know what situation was there

5. how many people went down the canals, how many did survived, how long where they going to Srodmiescie (2 hours, 5 hours, 10 days??)

And in other Wajda's movies is same routine - lack of narration that leads to confusion or misunderstanding the true historical situation... I know Polish history pretty well (since I learned it at school) and since I have such problem I can only imagine how foreigners must feel when they watch his movies.

Based on a true story of Polish submarine "Orzel" (The Eagle): September 1939, "Orzel" is coming to Estonian neutral harbor in Tallin. Under pressure from Germany Estonians have intern the ship. Commander Grabinski decides to escape to England through the Baltic Sea, without any maps that has been confiscated and with only small amount of fuel on board. They sneak out of Tallin during the night and begin their journey through Baltic Sea dominated by German Navy.

The story of "Orzel" is one of the most bravest episodes of Polish Navy during the World War II and the movie is one of the best submarine movies in history (more realistic than American titles like "Run silent, run deep" or "Torpedo run"). Most of the scenes were shot on Orzel's twin - "Sep" (The Vulture).

I bought this movie only because I was curious what would Sean Connery do in Swedish movie... Well, it turned out to be British movie filmed in Norway, but the story takes place in Sweden. But that wasn't the big surprise...

After watching "Ransom" I was really surprised that I've never heard of this movie, because it was really good - intelligent, surprising and entertaining - what more could you expect from a thriller?? I was even more surprised when I saw how low the rates are in IMDb - perhaps some people were expecting lots of explosions and car chases, but instead it is brilliantly handled thriller which really worked for me :)

I've seen the "Mystery Science Theater 3000" movies but even the worst science fiction crappy movies from 60's they made fun of weren't as bad as this one!!

from the start I wasn't expecting much, even thought they've had Leslie Nielsen, but with each minute I was more and more depressed, bored and ashamed to waste my life with this kind of bull**it

I'm not a impulsive man, but all the authors of "2001: A Space Travesty" should be taken to the prison for what they have done - for the first time in my life I wished god would take away my sight so I didn't have to watch the movie until the end!!!!!!!!

I've seen few movies about Jack the Ripper case and this is without any doubt the best of them, also one of the best criminal dramas ever. Opposite to other productions about one of the most famous killers in history creators of "Jack the Ripper" based on police files rather than legends and gossips (just to mention "From hell" with Johnny Depp or "Murder by decree" with Christopher Plummer).

This created very unique image of clash of two worlds - poorly organized police force and psychopathic mind of the killer at the end of 19th century. We see inspector Abberline (played brilliantly by Michael Caine) struggle with the case that no one at his times would find simple.

There are dozens of theories who Jack the Ripper really was and this movie covers most of them showing us all the suspects and until the end keeps waiting if identity of the killer will be revealed...

This movie is simply masterpiece - entertaining (despite the main motive being really nasty), involving, great casting and beautifully handled by the director.

The first episode was really good, second one was pretty good, third was average, fourth was average, fifth was average... I don't know who Tina Fey is, so all I can tell is how I see this piece of her work and it isn't particularly good one.

Perhaps because I just don't prefer the "office humor" that fills this show or because all the characters except her and Baldwin seems too me pretty same - plain meaningless background.

I can't tell why this show doesn't work for me, but after each episode I have feeling that something was missing in this one - atmosphere was weak, plot was too simple, jokes too flat...

Pity, because I liked the beginning...

I was a little bit disappointed of the way creators decided to handle this movie - for me the American way of presenting documentary by listening to endless list of boring people is one of the worst ways there could be - but what was the major disappointment is that the story told was really flat.

I know that it's hard to compete with such masterpieces like "JFK" or "I comme Icare" and this wasn't the goal for creators, but what was the point of use president assassination as a base for the point they were heading?? Really it's like creating a movie similar to "Godfather" just to point out that alcohol is bad for your health.

For me "Death of a president" is major disappointment because creators simply wasted a good opportunity to tell their story in interesting way - instead of involving plot we get bunch of people with their memories that doesn't even look like they care about whet they are saying. Instead of of thrills during the movie we get "mhm, how interesting"...

The other thing is really poor quality of some materials - f.e. woman set as Bush adviser to photos is so obviously fake that it make me laugh (wrong size of her head, wrong contrast, wrong lightning) - come on this is supposed to be professional movie and I could have done better quality fake photos...