Change Your Image
![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNTU2N2I1N2EtOWM3ZC00YjUxLTk2NGItMjk4OTE2ODc1YzIwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDQxMzE0NA@@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
OneAnjel
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Person of Interest (2011)
Intriguing bingeable procedural
In some ways, this show might remind you of any number of procedural crime-fighting shows yet I can't really say it is similar to any one specifically. It has elements from shows like Travelers, with the low-key vibe but also a little Batman energy with the wealthy guy who wants to fight crime anonymously (& the low voice, although that can get a bit annoying), and Fringe because of the unique way crimes are discovered.
I would not have thought these actors would work well together but Michael Emerson as Finch is a great character and Caviezel as Reese seems to fit the part - creates the character - perfectly. I really enjoy Detective Carter and Lionel is a great character - a down to earth guy who holds the show's comedic relief.
I also like a lot of the music they use on here like Live With Me by Massive Attack ft. Terry Callier
Now midway through S2 I have to remove one star because the intriguing premise has become too cookie-cutter with too much focus on these Joker & Riddler nemesis who turn up in every other episode. Instead of helping people, our dynamic duo are constantly being pursued by people who want to either aquire the machine, learn the identity of Finch, or kill John. It's getting really old. And the people they help invariably distrust them and think they can handle things on their own. As well, the characters are extremely one dimensional.
The worse development is that John has aquired a trained Malinois which they call a Malenoise (it's pronounced Ma-luhn-waa) who they keep in the apartment all day and never use on jobs! A trained Malinois like high level military use! What's the point of it being in the show?
I initially thought this was a great show. I can see why there's so many 9 & 10 star reviews. But those people didn't come change their review after getting further into the series, maybe.
I'll watch a bit more but I'm tempted to skip ahead and see if later seasons pick back up on the original premise.
Some reviews say we're near that level of being observed now. Perhaps. But if so, the social media platforms are certainly the matrix of the real life machine. All the 3-letter government agencies track people through them.
The Beekeeper (2024)
Good action flick, storyline is sign of the times
I've discovered I like Jason Statham and so I decided to watch The Beekeeper after seeing his Mechanic Revenge. I thoroughly enjoyed this film - it is pretty much non-stop action and intrigue. I felt that Emmy Raven Lamppost did a fine job as the special agent, I'm not really sure why so many people felt she was bad in the role. I think her character was very stoic and people didn't feel she emitted the correct emotion for being someone who just lost her mother. But you wouldn't find someone who's a special agent unable to compartmentalize their emotions. But one of the plot holes is that it's a conflict of interest for an agent to work on a case that involves one of their loved ones. But we'll put that aside because it's an important point for the end of the movie that she be the last person looking out the window.
I also note that several reviewers failed to see the potential realism in the plot and thought that Clay was just out for pure revenge. What they missed was that once Adam started looking into the scam artists on a larger scale, he realized that they were funding crooked politics kind of like what's happening right now with our installed administration. God only knows where they get their funding. But these huge scams are absolutely real and many times they do fund not only crooked politics but human trafficking, drug cartels, and foreign wars. So this is a very realistic part of this film. As far as the theme of the beekeepers being this elite group, I think that is just a sign of the times - in other words there's so much out there in cyberspace right now about secret cults and special forces who do this or that and for good or for bad. So I think that's just something they decided to go with instead of saying that he was from the Navy SEALS or some other Elite unknown military force. Which I appreciated, to be honest, because we've all seen so many ba ddass characters that have a military background.
The other part that people aren't getting is that much of the film is tongue in cheek - at least the characters who come up against our beekeeper. Of course, it's not meant to be realistic so I'm not sure why any review would bother to make a statement about it not being realistic. I mean it's not a documentary, it's not on the History Channel.
I couldn't figure out who played the part of the new beekeeper in the pink opalescent coat who tried to take out Adam at the gas station, but I thought that was a strange character for being someone supposedly in this Elite Force who is allegedly in place to keep the hive on the straight and narrow. But this film obviously wants to throw in some interesting characters including Adam's final foe with the false leg who didn't really seem like a bigger threat to me than a full SWAT team who Adam easily made his way through.
The other big plot hole of course is the the president's son having the protection of an ex CIA operative who technically works for the mother but who failed to inform the mother of what her son was involved in. The fact that the son is such a twit is just part of the tongue and cheek aspect. I'm not really sure why the film decided to pretend this youngster with his limited computer Brilliance decided to make the mother the president of the United States - I know there's got to be some sort of humor or message in there somewhere. I'm choosing to see the whole takeaway as yes we can truly drain the swamp even if it's just one Elite mother on the right side.
But as another review pointed out, it's not hard to just dismiss the various political inserts because there's no direct message one way or the other. It's just using the highest forces possible to show us what a incredible Soldier The Beekeeper is even taking out his own replacement.
I also thought it was a bit odd that they had someone so out of touch with reality managing an account with over $2 million dollars who was apparently so weak that rather than try to get it back she took her own life . But if I never see Priscilla Rashad in another film or TV show , she won't be missed . There are other older black actresses in the world .
This film has a lot of action and a lot of Statham wreaking havoc. If you just want a entertaining unrealistic action packed film, then I say go for it. I wish I could be part of the 99% who compare it to John Wick but I've never seen any John Wick films. If I have to compare Statham to anyone it would be maybe a James Bond meets Chuck Norris.
I've scoured over my submission three times for the alleged profanity IMDb is warning me could violate policy & apparently tanker with a W is profane while twit is not. Seriously?
Mechanic: Resurrection (2016)
Is Statham the new Bruce willis?
Honestly I almost turned this film off because it does start slow in an apparent attempt to justify Bishop's relationship with Gina. That actually fails to solidify, in my opinion. But as others have pointed out there are a lot of plotholes here. The action is very good and Jason is an incredible action star. I wouldn't go so far as to say hero and that's why I said is he the new Bruce Willis. Because if I would have said is he the new Stallone or Schwarzenegger I would have had to use the word hero. But he's very good. I think that he would have been better in the most recent James Bond films then the clown who was actually in them.
I wasn't that impressed with Jessica Alba, which disappointed me. I've heard her name so many times and I just assumed there was something special about her. But what I see is your standard blonde with teenage body doing a passable job on her few lines. I've seen models who were thrust into 1970s James Bond films do a better job at acting.
A lot of reviews don't delve into the plot holes - apparently we all know what they are? But I'm going to just point out that after he beat up the first woman who came after him to force him into the contracts, he then went out to this boat to help a woman who the entire audience knew was a setup - how come he didn't know it was a setup? And why was she treated so differently from the first woman? They were both just doing their job. So for me that was like an enormous plot hole. We don't really have any information about the woman who greets him on the island or what their background is or why he wouldn't just say to her "look their gas lighting us; they're really just after me".
The second big plot hole - or maybe it's the third cuz the second plot hole is him having feelings for the woman who tried to kill him - so the third big plot hole is why did he stay on the island once his location had been identified? Obviously Gina didn't find out where he was on her own. And then he even knows that he's being watched so he pretends to have feelings for Gina to gaslight the villains into thinking she's doing her job. Then all the sudden the feelings become real? Okay so let's get past that plot hole but now he's created another situation where if the villains think they like each other they might kidnap Gina. Okay so moving on...
The action is fine and most the dialogue is okay except for that 15 minute section where they're showing Alba frolicking on the beach and giving Jason googly eyes. Their love scene in the bed was silly because Alba obviously didn't do her own love scene and the actress who did do it had to keep hiding her head.
The scenery and venues are all fantastic.
I haven't seen Statham in the Mechanic, but I saw Charles Bronson and Jan-Michael Vincent in 1972, which was really good I don't think you can beat that. But at this point I'll probably go back and see Statham's version.
The Middle (2009)
Satire that's not for everyone
I love a good sitcom. I gave this a try because there's so little out there. I watched some of S1 & then looked at S6 a bit (seems to get worse). I reeeaaally wanted to like it. But there's just no chemestry between the characters. The actors can't pull it off. The only good character is Chris Kattan from Night at the Roxberry and the teen son manages to create a believable character.
People comparing this to Malcolm in the Middle must be referring to only the fact that both shows are complete satire and not to be construed as depicting real families. Malcolm ITM was leaps better - the cast had a synchronicity producers can only dream of and the actors each created characters that were believable and hysterical. I wish In the Middle had attempted to mimic MITM. But you can't replicate Jane's Lois or Bryan's Hal or Frankie's Malcolm.
I'm not a fan of Heaton but here they clearly try to mold her character after Lois and it just fails. Attikus as Brick is painful.
But not as painful as the reviews who say their whole family watched and identified with the whole family. That's like saying you watched Married with Children with all your kids and husband and thought it was modeled after your family. Please. It's satire, not real life. It dramatizes realistic situations by making them outlandish and making you feel like maybe your day wasn't so bad. Kids might sit through it but hopefully they understand its not real life, no more than the Brady Bunch in the 70s - which was aimed at families and mixed real emotion with the satirical situations. I'm surprised this lasted 8 (?) seasons. Clearly had a lot of loyalty from Raymond fans. I wasn't one.
Million Dollar Money Drop (2010)
Interesting premise but too dragged out
Hint: watch it on YouTube where you can stream at 1.25 speed. Otherwise it's an excruciatingly dragged out show about trivia: Which famous logo first appeared on the market; what sports team was most popular the year before...
Prime showed me this series after I watched The 1% Club. I'm not a gameshow person but I'm old enough to remember when the few channels on television - before Cable - always had things like Jeapordy and Wheel of fortune. Since then, I've checked out only a few episodes of things like Deal or No Deal, Who Wants to be a Millionaire or such. There's so much more to choose from in this century -- you're not stuck with The Weakest Link being the only channel that comes in. But if you like those shows, Money Drop will probably be enjoyable for you.
I found it entertaining enough to watch several episodes after going on YT Premium where I sped it up and could more easily ff through the long repetative moments of the couples yelling "drop" or harassing each other about which drop to choose. You definitly get the feeling that at least one mate between any given couple is seeing their partner in a way that's never been exposed before and wonder if their relationship can survive whatever demanding screams to place it here, not there, caused them to watch hundreds of thousands get sucked out of sight as it dropped into the black hole.
I liked the challenge of the trivia questions and I thought the idea of the money being sucked down into a black hole was intriguing. But the presentation wasn't that great. I'm not familiar with the host as an actor, really, but there was no added value from him. By E6, he starts chidding the couple about how excited they are, like it's weird, in a failed attempt to insert humor, perhaps. The wait to see which money perch actually drops is so long that by then you've changed your attention to some noise in the kitchen or checking you're email - and even if you're watching, the money drop is shown just for milliseconds and you're not really sure which one dropped until the camera finally pans up. It's just very frustrating and is designed to make the audience feel out of control, perhaps.
Like another reviewer mentioned, there should have been more than one couple per episode - the couple's get extremely hard to watch and predictable; most of the women act like they were doing lines right before they came on stage while the men focus on one aspect of a question and think they have the answer. I mean honestly, I can only imagine the adrenaline pumping through these couples as they envision themselves taking home the money and feel as if they're losing their personal savings. So there is a level of interest but I can see why this show didn't continue.
It's interesting that the producers didn't take notes from any other successful show like audience participation or lifelines, or asking simple things like is your family in the audience and then pointing out aunt Mary and uncle Ted. That could have added to the excitement and removed a lot of the redundancy and waiting. Also I think the host should have had something more colorful on, he was in all black each time and looked like a floating head. But I appreciated him more than the hosts such as on shows like Is It Cake who try too hard and end up being grating.
Your Honor (2020)
Engaging but stereotypical, & disappointing
I'm really on the fence about how to review this show. After seeing the ending, I did a little search to see if the original Israeli version, Kvodo, was just as sloppy and insulting. Many are saying Kvodo was more tidy due to the fact Your Honor was expecting to pull this out into a longer series while Kvodo had a beginning, middle, and ending. They also mention having to alter the story to conform to the US legal system. I read that Kvodo was so popular that 5 other countries are doing their own versions. I find that hard to believe after watching this train wreck.
Many reviews claim the son is a terrible character but I would suggest watching with an eye for what the film is telling you. Doohan does an excellent job portraying Adam, a deeply emoted and vulnerable teen who needs to make sense of the world he finds himself in while inadvertently wreaking havoc.
The worst character is Gina Baxter and I'm not absolutely sure it's all the fault of the character. I mean, try to imagine Jennifer Connelly or Rachel Weisz in that role and you can start to see how daring and perverse the character is supposed to be. But Hope Davis was so boring. Her mouth was constantly agape and she appeared more mentally challenged than menacing. Her side view looks like a Adam's Family comedy character from a sketch book. They had Davis in monotone drab colors with colorless makeup and long straggly hair. Someone so malicious, manipulative and wealthy would have put some effort into her appearance. Gina was not just your average antagonist; she was truly detestable. Her appearance in a scene gives you palpable disgust.
I initially thought Lilli Kay was a poor choice for the role of Baxter's daughter - with the long shapeless physique and masculine face. But in S2 they soften her up a lot and the sense that it's a male playing the part is forgotten. She turns out to be a pretty good actress here but Fia's final act in the series is completely unbelievable. We are shown this young woman who seems to take to motherhood easily, who is the only Baxter with a moral compass and yet she would not exhaust every option to try and keep her child? Complete bull. Way out of character and thoughtlessly contrived.
Now, I admit, the series seemed fairly well-acted and there was a handful of seasoned players. But the emotion was so tamped down it was frustrating at times - probably for the actors, too. While the series punches us in the face with what should be shocking developments, I felt I was watching people just going through the motions. It seemed the director intentionally dialed it back to, theoretically perhaps, make it more hard hitting - like a jalapeno that at first seems tame. For me, that backfired. Especially when you consider what made Breaking Bad a cult classic was the over the top emotion in the characters' expressions, it seemed strange to see Cranston holding back - almost gliding, like a ghost through his parts; like a wallflower at a prom. He's almost unrecognizable compared to the characters he exploded onto the screen in Malcolm in the Middle and Breaking Bad.
My biggest disappointment is that Your Honor is so stereotypical in the design of the characters and circumstances that it borders on (insert any number of offensive descriptive adjectives). In S1, we are presented with a typical media narrative of the haves and the have nots, essentially. While dramatized for your enjoyment, much of the circumstances are based in real life - cops on the take; gangs sacrificing members; judges throwing convictions; gangs taking revenge on each other. In Your Honor we are faced with the corruption every liberal loves to whine about - corruption in the police; corruption in courts; corruption in white collar jobs; oppression and desperation in black ghettos; and unrelenting fear imposed by Russian mobs.
Season 1 turned out to be watchable and entertaining. Season 2 took 4 episodes to get started and then ended by flipping through a ViewMaster with hints in photos, pausing just for a moment before the wheel spins to the next entry. Clearly, the producers did hope for a third season but season 2 probably lost a lot of viewers.
The Hustle (2019)
Got boring fast & ending was too unrealistic
I'm checking out comedies on YouTube and this looked interesting. Like a lot of people pointed out, it's a rip off of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels but not nearly as entertaining. Scoundrels is from a time when production companies were falling over each other trying to get Steve Martin on their payroll. Melanie aka Rebel is not nearly in such demand. I don't like nor dislike Jane Hathaway but the name makes me think of only one person - the banker's assistant on Beverly Hillbillies.
I haven't seen Scoundrels for years but I do know Martin's character does not kiss anyone at the end. This was added by some fat-is-beautiful liberal to pad the fabricated narrative that it's ok to be morbidly obese and expect healthy attractive people to desire you for "who you are." One's physique is the fruit of who a person is. Accepting people who are out of shape is different from changing the narrative. We need to be kind and understanding but obesity is a serious medical condition, not a lifestyle choice or orientation.
I actually saw Rebel one other time and turned the film off within 10 minutes. This time there was not the over use of foul language and trailer park wit, but the film just wasn't that entertaining. It actually got boring. Jane wasn't able to pull off the stoic intellect of her predecessor and Rebel may as well have been playing a different role, she is so far away from being the comedic genius of Steve Martin. Anyone would have been better in that part, even Brooke Elliot. But more specifically, it would have been better with someone like Megan Mullally, Amy Poehler or Ali Wong. This was just someone trying to find a slot to fit Rebel in and it just didn't work.
There were some clever scenes but few laughs.
The Wedding Invitation (2017)
Fun chick flick with great friendship focus
This film is a lot of fun if your a female. If you're a guy or a prude, you might feel it's over-acted and immature. We laugh at films like Road Trip, Wedding Crashers, and Dumb & Dumber but put females in similar over the top roles and we get a bunch of negative reviews that are so out of touch with this film they bother to leave 1 or 2 stars, indicating strong knee jerk reactions.
I actually found this on Youtube Movies where over 110 comments are all mainly positive. People compare it to Friends & Sex in the City. I'm not familiar with those but the humor is in line with films like Miss Congeniality or Legally Blond.
The actors here are not big stars but they did a great job. The dialog is perfect for what the film is trying to accomplish and they all did outstanding at delivering lines in what could be called Modern Schlapschtick with a romantic theme. The strong female friendship is a good theme and is realistic.
It's definitly a chick flick, guys will not understand this film. The drama is not realistic but ladies will get the humor. On the other hand, guys might think this is some secret lens into how women really act.
I enjoyed it.
The 1% Club (2024)
Fun but too easy and poorly presented plus the marketing 🙄
I'm one of those people who loves brainiac type shows. So of course I thought this was going to be a really great show. The first thing that disappointed me was that they start out way up at a question 90% of the people surveyed got correct and very slowly dwindle down to 1%. I do have a high IQ but I thought these were relatively easy questions. But the majority aren't really questions about intelligence, rather about perception or ability to perceive the twist; riddles. For example one of the questions is: These two states South Dakota and North Carolina can form two completely new state names, what are they? I thought it was very obvious but yet several people got that wrong.
In E2, two questions had more than one way to reach the answer. IE, they say to look at the round numbers to find an equation; they were speaking of the digits that have circles, which is so anti-intelligent you really have to hope for the best in answering because there no rhyme or reason - most people would think they meant the numbers ending in 0. But ironically, if that's the route you chose, you would still get the correct answer.
It should have been more fun than it was. I thought the host was okay but I'm not a fan - I don't really care for hosts who think that teasing is funny or entertaining (and I prefer nice voices). E2 inproves a bit but in E1 it almost becomes an interview of the lady with one kidney. With 100 contestants, we see only a handful and hear from even fewer with the host picking favorites to - well - pick on. I'll also just mention that in episode 3, I felt the guy who was sponsored by The Gates Foundation was a marketing spot. Bill Gates has really become a hated figure after forcing his vaccine on the world and is obviously a paid attempt to soften people's opinions of him. Since his name is on the 2015 covid patent along with Clinton's, we can be pretty sure he's known for a while that there would need to be a vaccine for what we now know to be a relatively benign common cold cousin.
Part of the difficulty is the short amount of time given to reach an answer. But E2 was even easier than E1 almost by leaps and bounds.
But for those saying the 1% question on E1 was unfairly presented, I'm afraid that is just showing that you didn't qualify. The directions that it was a word is literally in the term "password"; while popular to call every digital key that unlocks something a password, a key that uses numbers, acronyms, or symbols is technically a passCODE. But thank you for solving my question of why that was so difficult for our finalists. You would probably hate the film Exam (2009).
I'll continue to watch this as it becomes available, I know the British version is very popular. However I do hope there are more challenging questions to come - but that aspect does make it fun for the whole family. Another example is, basically, in the English alphabet which picture represents the 23rd letter. Several people got that wrong. Of course, initially you do have to figure out that it's discussing the English alphabet. Some reviews mention it's designed to make everyone feel smart. Maybe that's all there is to it but I think a lot of people would disagree.
But the fact is, anyone can get stumped by age old verbal tricks or riddles like "A plane crashed in the desert; where did they bury the survivors", or "If y e s spells yes, what does e y e s spell". Trust me, these do stump many people. This show may be just a series of this type of riddle.
In many of the questions, solving is more easily done by eliminating the wrong answer such as turning the + sign 45 degrees. Only 2 answers had the plus in the 45 degree angle and of those, only one had the 2nd symbol turned almost 90° to the left.
I was one of the people who was initially stumped by the 1% question in episode 3, and yet looking back it was quite obvious.
As I said I'm not fond of the host (never heard of him before) but I don't hate him either. Hopefully they're just on a learning curve right now. If he's a comedian, then I agree he should be allowed to adlib. Might make it more interesting.
The Librarians (2014)
Uplifting Charmed meets LXG
This is a very uplifting, fun fantasy series. The basis isn't necessarily new - many shows have a team of gifted people solving crimes, mysteries & puzzles. But this most reminds me of great films that were before their time: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and The Time Machine, adding some of the youthful whimsy of Charmed and Harry Potter.
I have to mention that I didn't know this series existed until I did a search for one of my favorite tv characters: Elliot Spencer (Christian Kane). This makes me think that streaming platforms attempting to show me what interests me get too stuck on one genre while ignoring others. In the old days, we would see all ads at some point eventually. But I never saw one ad for this clever show.
Even though Wyle is one of the more well known names, Flynn is actually not the best character. I'm not sure if it's the way the character was written or the way it was played. He would have been more believable with a slightly disheveled appearance. But the writers try to give each charcter a viable backstory with interesting quirks or gifts. One could say another more seasoned group of actors could have pulled this off better yet it's engaging and charming nonetheless.
Larroquette is great as Jenkins, and Kane is enjoyable although Leverage is still his best vehicle. I'm disappointed that Math Girl is so criticized by reviewers yet that is true in real life, as well: average people disliking the smart kid. But I did think they are remiss in not having at least one regular black character - which would have actually made more sense for Ezekiel.
Some episodes are better than others but it follows the tradition of wrapping up each episode with minimal cliffhangers.
A great carefree family-friendly show that tweens and up can enjoy. Maybe even younger but it does have upsetting gouls and situations.
Exam (2009)
Perfect way to get the right candidate - but most reviews missed it even after having it revealed to them.
I read a handful of reviews, both recent and past, and I feel like the low star reviews totally missed the point of the exam. Some were downright angry that it was such a simple sort of trick. The high star reviews didn't seem to really grasp it, either, though; however they enjoyed the stress and chaos. Or maybe they just didn't verbally dissect it the way I'm about to.
Someone said the film has been done number times. I would wholeheartedly disagree - unless they're talking about just being in one location needing to figure a way out, which doesn't count, if you ask me.
But one might wonder if it isn't the very film watched by the inventors of a certain pandemic virus in recent years - imagine them clanking Champaign flutes, laughing and chatting about how they will become billionaires off the backs of the easily persuaded social media world 60% of us live in when they rush in with their anti venom, as it were. But I'll leave that to the history books.
The film itself was decently acted for a low budget film - the characters all managed to get across the point of their persona and the setting was perfect for the play. I do think this might be the film that erroneously offered the idea that a sociopath is actually a narcissist; White was a sociopath and narcissist is not interchangeable with the term. I can understand the confusion because both demonstrate huge egos and ability to manipulate, however a narcissist is not a cold blooded killer.
For those who are puzzled or think it was poorly researched or simplistic amid the grand pretense, I'll explain: When you have a room full of geniuses and need to find out who they are at their core, the thing most of them lack is the ability to keep a perspective of the common things, the little stuff. These over-educated high IQ applicants were being evaluated to see if they could still take into consideration how the common mind works; what common people think or say without rushing to a conclusion that their intellect is the only solution. When the Instructor said "Listen carefully because there will be no repetition", most of the room thought they were too smart to need to listen carefully. But some of us heard the question right away: "Are there any questions?" I noticed right away that this was a question normally heard in high school or blue collar training arenas, not in high IQ situations where the candidate would be expected to speak up if they had a question or, more commonly, to figure it out after having been told the rules already.
The answer was not about whether the room asked additional questions at the point, but if anyone of them had thought it was and wrote "No," they would have been correct. The question was about whether there were any questions on the sheet, which a kindergartner would have quickly pointed out, there were not. These mental giants were too full of themselves to see the forest for the trees. There was no trick, just a super simple direction injected into a room of people who thought they were taking an exam based on their IQ and expertise.
The film did try to confuse us with the odd Frenchman and the overly knowledgeable scientist -- which one was the plant? But a true genius would have understood there was a plant in the room who had the answer. The Frenchman had the answer, even leaving his glasses behind to give someone a chance to discover their usefulness.
Overall, I enjoyed the film but wouldn't watch it again. I liked the point it made and that aspect has created an almost cultish following of the film not represented in the low stars on this platform.
Skyfall (2012)
Get Smart in the Temple of Doom
I remember the Bond films from when I was a young girl. They weren't really my cup of tea back then but my brother, 2 years older than me, always wanted to see the newest Bond film and he had to drag me with him so my mother could have some me time. I remember that James Bond was untouchable, he had no problems that lasted more than 5 minutes. In Skyfall, this new character they're trying to pass off as James Bond gets into all kinds of trouble, doesn't get along with people, gets shot and falls off a train all in the first 10 minutes of the film. I would like to paraphrase something that I found in one of the reviews that perfectly fits what I'm thinking:
The main problem with all the recent Bond films is the writers tried to make the movies realistic, which is in antithesis to classic Bond. The real Bond drives cars that double as submarines, never gets shot, is never dirty, unshaven or sweating. He is a superhero, not a common mortal.
That really sums up how I feel about the character in Skyfall, not to mention that for me he just doesn't embody the James Bond Persona and presentation. Bond is sexy, well-dressed, good looking.
I did like the music and I thought the videography was great. But honestly in that first action sequence I really felt like I was watching a 1960s amateur action film. As a woman, I also don't care for the sudden surge of older confused looking females substituting for the alpha male arrogance of a true mastermind on the last several years.
I would have liked to have seen more from the Bond girl and again I go back to the original action scene where one mirror on the vehicle gets knocked off and then the other one and there's some ridiculous quip about it. I honestly just felt like this has got to be the most simple-minded poorly put together elementary dialogue that could possibly be found in a James Bond film. I just don't understand all the high accolades.
Skyfall doesn't really remind me of a James Bond film at all. It feels a little bit more like Maxwell Smart trying to find his way around the Temple of Doom.
Marlon Wayans: Good Grief (2024)
Depressing and vulgar
There's 2 critic reviews on this show and both clearly have a sense of closeness to Marlon that I don't have, blubbering on and on about the honesty and vulnerability of this comedy special. But I, personally, don't tap Play on a comedy to hear about death, regret, and heartache. Especially not with the N word substituted for each verb, adjective and comma. Think of the last time you heard your male cousins all in the corner of the yard at the bbq trying to console that one dude that got stood up, spit on, run over all in one week. Marlon is that one dude here. But unlike that backyard convo where the N word substitutes for feelings and the meaning changes by the way its said, here Marlon seems to be just trying to use it as a way to interrupt the heavy topics, like someone insulting you but calling you babe and honey in between to throw you off.
I skipped ahead a few times but that didn't get me past the droning self-examination and geriatric potty humor.
If you want to reflect on how you've treated your parents and listen to revelations about life and death, then give this a try.
American Fiction (2023)
A satirical quandary that reviewers are failing to grasp
With films like this, there's a part of me that wishes a requirement of writing a review was to add credentials, so to speak. And I'll just start by saying I'm from a mixed family - which traditionally identifies people who have both black and white family of equal importance. I've never seen so many pretentious, verbose, and maudlin reviews for another film in my 19 years as a member of this database. Review after review goes on and on about how this film is about (insert long winded cut and paste similar to previous review, complete with actors and directors first and last names) and how the media likes to impose its narrative. People call it blatantly funny but meandering. More than one person even said the 'side story' detracted from the interesting story they were promised.
I have not read Erasure, nor is that a requirement, although NPR d o t org recommends you do before seeing this film. I can't comment on the book but the period it was written in defines the explosion of rap music and rap culture into a world where the most notable news anchors predicted such music would never become mainstream. It became a living breathing organism. I know my own nephew, whose name I won't reveal, went into the genre singing about things he really had no first hand experience with.
Since things are difficult to research online for authentic results today - let me explain that the term Rap is from the idea of having a conversation; speaking to your friends. It's short for rapport, which means to connect in mind with words; to express yourself freely among others who understand or respect you. When young people started speaking inside of music, they referred to it as a rap session - someone telling a story about themselves or something important. The term is meaningful and positive, at least in theory.
I like this film but I felt it could have been better. I felt it held back in some ways. But it was well-acted and all aspects of the film were important. But this isn't a film about the media forcing black opprezion onto us; it's a film about the higher aspects of the race taking issue with the focus on the lower aspects of poverty and desperation, as if that defines them. It's mainly satire, as shown in the sarcastic and dramatic ways the non blacks spoke and thought juxtaposed with the normal family life of a man who is just a man like any other.
The idea is more profound today than 23 years ago with the installed administration imposing division and strife in order to gaslight an audience against his opponent. I've live many years and I've never experienced the kind of blatant ism I have in the last 4 years. It absolutely is life mimicking art (more specifically, people reacting to a narrative they're being fed via media and film). Yes, we have many more hills to climb but we are all equal.
In fairness, whitez do like a good sob story and it isn't only the blague struggle they are so fond of. But like Denzel likes to say, if you see color YOU are the race ist.
Should we think like others expect us to just so we can understand their perspective? I think this film is about not doing so. In the end, we find that the most important thing for Monk is his family and throughout the film he tries to stay true to his art regardless of the financial situation it affords him. I think that is the take away, along with the message to not just consume things without knowing more about the big picture. Perhaps not only to remove the stereotype from the non blaque perspective but to prevent it from infiltrating the tender minds of young people who deserve to see themselves as neither better than nor lesser than. We don't have to understand each other we just have to respect each other.
People say the ending was disappointing, they wanted more of the stereotypical vio lance and drama. But when Monk talks about the ending of his film (once his book is going to be a movie) he wants to go up and admit he is the author. We were divided in that moment when some of us thought he would say his piece, the audience would laugh or gasp and his publisher would confirm his story; juxtaposed to the other scenario that many saw in their mind before it played out -- the eF Be eye rushes the room and ends up taking him out right there on the stage. Which ending did you see in your mind? Cuz that defines you. Food for thought!
I can't seem to get thru the trig g e r checkers without altering certain words. Apologies.
Thanks for reading.
Untold Stories of the ER (2004)
Untold here is another word for rare
It's 2024 and it's my first time watching this series - a few episodes so far - and what I can tell you is this is a unique show compared to the many reinactment shows out there, even today. It's not intended to win oscars for the actors, the reinactments are just there to provide a visual to the actual story. Like many reinactment shows, however, it does replay the same scenes several times and the camera work is appropriately ammature (have you ever seen professional camera work in a real ER?) The doctors telling the story adds the only sense of authenticity, and seeing the recovered patient later.
But contrary to some reviewer opinions, such as the 21 yr cop, these are not attempting to depict normal stories under normal circumstances. Thus my title - the untold (or perhaps embarassing is a better word) intends to show rare circumstances. Unfortunately, in many of these situations that amounts to showing doctors, staff, and first responders in a bad light at times. I mean, the young doctor who almost sent a young man home without thoroughly looking him over and missed a stab wound is embarrassing and even neglegent when you consider that he coded less than 5 minutes later. But the show gave an honest perspective on a 600lb man, who at the time was a rare sight, saying it's one of the most deadly but preventable circumstances.
ER doctors and staff are normally excellent, in fact although I've had bad luck with regular doctors and no longer use the medical profession routinely, I can say that one ER doctor years ago saved my life when I had a rare occurence that I later discovered is often misdiagnosed and results in loss of life. Despite that I was still walking and talking - unusual for what I was experiencing - he knew right away from the other symptoms. So if I had an emergency, I would go to the ER (or ED as some are known).
The show - at least in the early seasons - is definitly not uber professional but it is unique and entertaining.
Northern Exposure (1990)
Absurd & grating caricature mocking social norms
I enjoyed E1 and thought I may have found a new favorite series, wondering why I had never ever bothered with it in the past. Like many, I noticed it on my Prime lineup - but it's been on this platform since it's inception yet there are only 104 reviews, many from Prime members just recently. I'm not sure if there's anything to read into that but it seems to suggest that people who loved it while it was airing simply watched because there was nothing else on. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, I realize it's difficult to conceptualize a time when we were at the mercy of 3 or 4 broadcast channels that were owned by 1 or 2 conglomerates. When a show came on once a week, we all gathered around the single television in the main room to find out what happened after the cliffhanging episode of the prior week. We got up to run to the bathroom only during commercial breaks while the person who didn't have to go gathered more drinks and popcorn from the kitchen.
Part of the appeal of shows like Northern Exposure, Cheers, Dynasty, or Full House was discussing the characters and their dilemmas. We've lost that now as we all sit in the same house with our noses in our individual devices chatting with strangers on social media about our thoughts.
But at least it's something to miss about godawful shows like this one that would not survive with today's more fastidious consumer. There are shows that stand the test of time but there are other shows that we look back on and wonder why we spent any time on them.
For me, Northern Exposure is a great premise that was poorly executed. It reminds me of that super awesome first date that keeps you coming back even though that cool person you got your hopes high for has failed to resemble the funny, considerate, uplifting potential mate for the ensuing 3 weeks and it's time to cut your loses. (I actually spent 4 weeks on this show.)
Joel is obviously meant to represent the high-achieving, highly educated and high expectations college graduate that the lower class love to hate but whose taxes run half the programs we all rely on while Maggie represents every woman who is independent but who men like to believe really is just holding out due to unexplored unrealistic psychological problems. These two characters are the least likeable but are focused on for more than 50 percent of each episode.
The remaining town folk are fairly interesting and could have won me over but waiting through such lengthy, forced dialog for 5 minutes or more several times per episode just to see some of the other folk is just not a good use of my time.
I also agree with many reviews that the college-age girl with the 62 year old was a bit much, especially when her previous love interest was also someone who should know better. But I'm sure the writers added that as a definitive example of the fact that being in such a small town in Alaska means virtually no rules, no laws, and in your face eccentricities that are sure to make you feel something one way or the other.
My favorite character is Ed who while appearing to be a step and fetch it type is actually one of the few educated of the bunch with manners and a decent vocabulary. Perhaps the show is summed up when in the early episodes in S1 we learn that the hermit who came to Cicely for privacy and peace, Soapy, was actually a highly educated professional in his life before Alaska.
One thing I had looked forward to was the chance to observe how people deal with each other when there's really no where to go for them or you when they misbehave - you put up with each other and deal with things by looking for solutions and putting the past away as soon as possible. If the show had focused on that with a spot light on other players, my review would be much different. Instead, it's like watching weeds block the view of the night full of twinkling stars. I'm sure Morrow played his part as expected but Joel is so vile, deceptive, arrogant, brash, and entitled you just can't stand him; Maggie is so sarcastic you just want to wipe your hands every time these 2 are on the screen together, which is far too often. I mean ALASKA for heaven's sake - show me some of the land and the locals. But no.
On a final note, I'd like to point out that Maurice, contrary to one of the reviewers here, is not at all representative of the maga crowd except under the made up narrative of the 2016 POTUS candidate who did not win and has since been proven to have paid numerous people to support tall tales in many other areas, as well.
Frasier: Agents in America: Part 3 (1995)
This episode proves why earlier seasons were the best
Earlier seasons of Frasier are so hysterical! In season 2 starting with episode 20 and forward reminds me of how hysterical David Hyde Pierce is as Niles. Of course Bebe is a great character as are all the characters on Frasier. But in particular David Hyde Pierce is one of those comedic geniuses that I feel has been overlooked in film as a whole. Of course we get to see him in this long running series, but he is the epitome of perfect timing and physical comedy. I know there are only a few reviews here and chances are no one will see this for years but I felt I owed it to the series after reviewing the entire series with only six or seven stars because of how downhill it goes near season 7 and onwards.
One review claims that he's disgusted with how Frasier dumps women after bedding them but the main thread of the entire series is normally Frasier being dumped. I also would like to point out that in this episode it was Bebe who led him to believe they had slept together so she could create the scene on the window ledge. I would venture to ask who would blame Frasier for being seduced by someone so obnoxious and demanding as Bebe, regardless. In that scenario I would say that Frazier was the one being used.
I'm going to also just mention, reading through the reviews on the Fraser series, every now and then you get some snide comment about how David Hyde Pierce doesn't really like women and they clearly feel that is a very important point that people who enjoy his acting didn't know. I didn't know for years but that didn't change my opinion about him in any way whatsoever. And I also didn't think it was at all obvious just from looking at him, as some people like to point out. A lot of men are very effeminate but they love women.
As much as we all enjoyed watching Niles Pine after daphne, I think they really ruined the show by putting them in a relationship together or perhaps more specifically they ruined it by turning it into this huge psychological memo jumbo. I think they should have totally enjoyed each other and Niles should have had this over the top romantic relationship with her just like he did before she knew about his feelings. It made me realize that although this show centers around psychiatrist, albeit fussy ones, the psychology touted in the show is often inaccurate. Such as when Fraser tells Niles that he has this perfectionist concept of Daphne and that it's destroying her and their relationship just so that they could throw in her getting fat trying to cover the pregnancy, that was hogwash and really destroyed what they could have done with that relationship. In fact they could have spun off a show with just Daphne and Niles with Frasier coming to visit now and then.
But overall some of the clever dialogue in this series has always sent me rolling on the floor.
The Why Files (2020)
Interesting stories but with a focus on debunking
I gave this a peek for 2 episodes and probably won't continue. The fish is extremely annoying, for one thing. But while the stories are interesting, the host just uses modern search results to reach conclusions - meaning he is holding out popular opinion as factual results. For instance, he claims the first mention of Big Foot was in 1924 and was proven to be a hoax by park rangers. That is actually not a true story but was made up in the 1980s to disuade people from going on Mt Shasta as they had a number of thrill seekers get lost or injured in the attempt and were tired of spending resources on the Big foot enthusiasts. I'm not a believer nor disbeliever but I know the origin of that story.
The cell phone from the woman leaving NASA is easily researched - she was holding the microphone and the larger piece with the battery was in a shoulder bag.
The show isn't bad for amateur work but I dislike shows that try to explain phenomenon as simple hoaxes.
The high star reviews here are obviously solicited by the channel because even very well-known and truly popular shows like Dr G and Unsolved Mysteries only have a few reviews.
Role Play (2024)
Great story, moves quickly, wraps up well
The trailer drew me in and, unlike some reviews, I did not feel that it misrepresented the film. Oyelowo really makes this film work, he seems to really pull out the humor of his part with perfect expressions and actions . Him and Connie Nielsen were the standout stars for me and I should mention the kids did a great job, as well, considering I normally don't like inexperienced child actors in a film- they did not come off as an experienced despite their limited dialogue. A lot of people mention Kaley Cuaco being such a great actress but I personally never heard of her before and the fact that she's a dead ringer for Leah Remini is kind of distracting. I mean the Brooklyn housewife who speaks and acts just barely above trailer living just didn't seem like the best lead for this role. Having said that, I admit Kaley did a great job it just felt more like a comedian trying to act serious instead of a serious actress pulling off a good comedy role like stars such as Sandra Bullock or Vivica A Fox have been known for . I haven't seen Connie Nelson in that much
although I just recently watched her in Bob Odenkirk's Nobody - good film - and I do remember her in Gladiator. But I haven't realized until now she has a resemblance to Kim Basinger, especially in her later years.
This film is surprising and while some people may consider it a rip off of this film or that film, I didn't feel that way at all. It actually had a unique vibe and it moved quickly wrapping up well. Of course, it's a dramatic action comedy so we already know it's not realistic - we don't need to even broach that subject. My personal opinion about this having a lot of low star reviews is that people aren't ready for women to be in that kind of a role even though we had Emma Peal way back in the 60s, Cleopatra Jones in the 80s and many more bad arse women since. I mean this is not a new thing guys, come on and get up to speed.
I found this film very entertaining and I was a little sad when it ended even though I liked the ending. I think women will definitely like it more than guys for the mere fact that they may feel emasculated by the role of the husband and have a lot of criticism for it. But for women, he rolled with the punches and we all knew that they loved each other, and that's what you do for love.
The Way Back (2020)
Poor script and pathetic soundtrack ruin this film about hitting rock bottom
Even those who aren't sports minded like to see an underdog team come up to their potential. But that's only part of the story. This is a film that doesn't really seem to know what it's about. It starts out trying to be about an alcoholic but neglects to show any of the consequences other than empty cans. Jack is given a chance to coach the basketball team at his own high school and yet his drinking is not shown to be much of a problem until they finally fire him for being drunk at practice. There just isn't a believable amount of consequence or actions in this film that truly depict an alcoholic.
As well, the now separated couple still go to their friend's child's birthday party and that is something you almost never see in real life when a couple loses their child, as Jack did. I worked at a famous children's hospital in California and I can tell you those who lose children gather together and those whose children lived gather together, but I've personally never seen anyone continue to attend gatherings of the living once their child died; it's too painful for all concerned. But this film throws it in as a trigger for Jack to take an even bigger dive and lose his coach position.
There is some good vibes during team events and we can sense enough of how he redirects the team and makes it a winning team. But the rest is very half-hearted and slow backed by pedestrian piano music that becomes grating despite its effort to change slightly to set each mood change.
To me, this film is about a man hitting rock bottom and making that sudden and drastic change to his life that many alcoholics can relate to -- too late to coach, perhaps, or to get his wife back, but not too late to become something better than what he was.
I can't, in good conscious, give it more than 4 stars despite Affleck being the lead character. He may have done fine for what he was given, but I've known alcoholics personally - hundreds, if I'm honest - and I couldn't connect with him in any way. Especially the constant use of the foul language in a church gymnasium; even alcoholics have manners and respect when it warrants. Also, the way the Father dismissed him was out of character to how he initially greeted Jack. Maybe that was more for the audience to sense how disgusted the Father was with him but it's out of character for a Priest, especially one who admires and fondly remembers the person involved. After all, he was the one who neglected to do the most basic background check on Jack before hiring him to work around kids. I'm just saying.
So in a nutshell: poor script, badly researched; grating soundtrack; doesn't sell the situation.
Dr. G Medical Examiner (2004)
Very unique & informative
Initially, I couldn't watch this show due to the graphic nature and heavy topic. But as I watched a few more, it became almost an educational show for me. It's fascinating to realize just how fragile life is and the simple ways lack of health or exposure to accidents, assaults, or toxins can change the trajectory of life on a dime.
Dr. G is one of those one-in-a-million people who works in a niche industry and has the ability to relate her findings in a way that is articulate and personable. I have to wonder whose idea it was to produce such a show and imagine NCIS's Ducky may have had some influence. Her high-pitched vocalizing isn't always easy on the ears but in many ways she feels like someone we might know and trust.
They drag it out quite a bit as most reality shows do - could it be this; could it be that; who is to blame... But most times the answer is a surprise to the viewer.
I'll glad they don't actually show the dead bodies and autopsies, that would be too graphic. The reenactments are sufficiently difficult to watch. As well, there are laws against showing dead bodies on tv and to get permission would mean going through a lengthy process per autopsy.
But for those saying the family photos are actors - you're wrong about that. In the show itself, there is a tag when it's a reenactment that says Dramatization. Everything else is actual.
Not all MEs are responsive. When my mother died of cancer, the COD said the cause was complications of a pelvic fracture with secondary cause being cancer. This puzzled me for years and I never got a response from the very young ME. I've read that cancer deaths are hidden under secondary causes, which I still believe and believe that's what happened to my mother. But in one episode where Dr. G explains how elderly who break hips can have a series of events from it, I was able to understand why the rookie ME put that as COD. However, my mother was ravaged by late stage pancreatic cancer (or more specifically, theradiation destryed her insides) and had just days to live when she created an unexpected situation for herself by trying to walk over to adjust a small heater. She slipped in her socks and fractured her pelvis. While the hospice nurse called the emergency doctor, my mother called a neighbor for sympathy who misunderstood and thought she was home alone and needed help. They called 911 and the police were the1st responders who thought she was immaciated from neglect and rushed her to the hospital where they treated her only for the fracture. By the time we got her back, she lived for only 3 more hours. We had just gotten her back from a hospice facilty so she could die at home - her request - when this happened. It made me understand fully why some families opt to not have medical personnel involved at all when they know they have a fatal illness.
Any hoo, I've learned a lot from Dr G and find it one of the most unique shows ever. She humanizes the process.
Devil in Ohio (2022)
Drags a bit but intriguing on some levels
I don't understand all the bad reviews. It feels a bit pedestrian and geared toward teens who can relate to 65% of the characters and scare easily. But overall the actors did good with what they had to work with.
The girl playing Mae is actually really good as far as expressing emotion and acting sus. The detective is nice looking. But there are really only 2 likeable characters: the detective and the youngest child who was adopted. The rest of the characters just form part of the huge backdrop to what is, essentially, a story about saving someone who ends up being a predator that Suzanne can likely never escape from.
The mother, Suzanne, is a character you can't really connect with. She's unlikeable, self-centered, controlling. She's so focused on saving Mae she is blind to everything and has no common sense. She makes so many mistakes in her position as a doctor that she should have been reported but ends up just having to attend a psyche eval, which she finds herself too intelligent to take seriously.
This is not an adult film on most levels and I felt the constant focus on the adult relationships and Suzanne's childhood trauma could have been glanced instead of pounded into the script. It could be considered a family film but not for anyone too young since it has inaccurate religious themes and scary ideology. As well, it does have same s e x relationships, although nothing graphic.
Overall, I wouldn't call it a waste of time but maybe a waste of too much time. It should have been a 3 part series with a lot less blah blahing; or it could have even been a longer series if it moved a bit faster and left out all of the psyco babble - in fact, it's a bit of a cliff-hanger in case they want to do a Part II. There is too much here's-my-feelings stuff and a long dissertation on Suzanne to explain her need to leave her own family to 'save' Mae. I felt it really dragged in parts and I'm not sure if they were trying to be preachy or just fillers. There were a lot of characters introduced that really were needlessly complex when none of the complexity ended up being part of the story.
I'm a little mad I spent 6 hours on this series but, at the same time, it did have it's moments and was fairly well-acted. No heavy accents, minority suffering, or political slants so that was a nice change.
3rd Rock from the Sun (1996)
One of the most clever sitcom concepts
This is one of my all-time favorite comedies. The concept of the characters is hilarious - especially the male security officer in a hot female form - as a woman myself, I thought Sally was one of the funniest characters. While Lithgow is a very talented actor and perfect for the part, Dick was not my favorite by any means - he was more the brunt of jokes and often got way too much spotlight. I stopped watching Saturday Night Live way back when it started leaning toward extreme liberalism, so I didn't know Jane's character was from there for many years. The elder information officer in the form of a teenager was Jonathan's best role to date, imo. All the characters were important to the show though sometimes it veered into craters, you could say, that detracted from the great flow, from my perspective, such as when they had Shatner on and decided to make him the big giant head. I felt the leap from imagining where the crew were from to detailing it with this womanizing grifter destroyed something special. It kind of never recovered and even brought this back in several times. Shatner is a great actor but the scenario was poorly thought out.
But essentially, the show is a great comment on the human condition and the rediculousness of taking ourselves so seriously.
I have watched the series a number of times because I try new shows but there's nothing like a good classic. It's right up there with shows like Two & a Half Men (w/Sheen), Malcolm in the Middle, The Simpson, and Married with Children. I could binge-watch any of those.
Frasier (1993)
The first few years were great
I can't give a higher score after around season 7. By season 9, it's changed far too much. Not only because Niles and Daphne become a couple, although that removed some of the most anticipated fodder from the show - Niles pining for Daphne & hysterical comments describing the never revealed Maris were some of the pinnacles of humor for this series. Fraiser and Niles played off each other so well and Niles was no less important; perhaps even more important. But later Seasons have far too much focus on Fraiser despite that the success of the series had previously been with other characters played off of him. Now it's become the axis with no spokes; a broken wheel. Additionally, the ridiculousness of pretending Daphne gained weight just to hide her pregnancy was a severely lacking set-up that was almost like an interruption in the show itself. Dozens of shows have successfully simply filmed the pregnant actress from the neck up with body doubles for full-length distant shots - there's a good reason it's done that way. It detracted from what should have been a romantic fun new relationship, saddling the new couple with bogus psychological hurdles. Nevertheless, I pressed on hoping for a return to some of the earlier cleverness but I'm calling it quits in S9 after enduring long redundant episodes of Fraiser's inability to form relationships with women and his endless tantrums with Martin. Fraiser oversized ego had too much spotlight instead of just being the catalyst.
To be clear, my review is re the original Fraiser series that ended in 2004. I personally don't believe anything that lacks Niles or Daphnie should be called by the same name. All the main cast is missing except Fraiser, who was, tbh, not the character I noticed most from Cheers. I guess it's not unlike 2.5 Men where the show changed beyond recognition but was still given the title of the once iconic comedy series. However, unlike Sheen, who truly was the centerpiece of the show, Grammer is more of a bank to shoot jokes off from. Not that he could be replaced easily, either, just wasn't the star, from my perspective. Niles had most of the best lines and his timing was impeccable. Roz was also a great character.
I have been a regular viewer for many years and have rewatched some of the first seasons more than once. But every time I try to get into these later seasons it just feels like a waste of time.
I see many people claim it's the number one sitcon ever & longest running. But in reality, Fraiser is around #10 on a list that has The Simpson's & Modern Family rated at a higher popularity; and there are several longer running series including The Simpsons, Two & a Half Men, Big Bang Theory, and Ozzie & Harriet.
Almost Paradise: Bahala Na (2023)
Too serious this season
I think most the reviews are Filipino or just Kane fans, apparently known as Kaniacs. Season one was entertaining but the crux of Filipino actors detracts from a broader value for the show, thus it was sent to Freevee instead of being picked up for the second season, officially ending the series. None too soon, if you ask me. Season two has changed significantly going from a focus on Alex in an action comedy, the star of the show from his wildly popular hitter character on Leverage, to attempting to make this into an action drama starring all the Filipino actors with a side of Christian Kane. It just doesn't work. The stories are too heavy with family feuds and wartime anti American sentiments. And the little child, barely 13 by her appearance, getting married? It feels like the show is not for general consumption anymore but is just a freeforall of getting every Filipino in front of the camera for a "let everyone have a turn" mentality to appease the islands. Which it may very well be - Dean Devlin was born and raised in the States but is half Filipino by ancestry. Almost Paradise is the first American series ever to be shot all in the PI.
It would be more entertaining and more realistic to make theshow focus on Alex as a playboy where he runs into international spies on vacation and such. After all, Filipino women love American men.
I'm disappointed this show has become so convoluted and poorly written.