Change Your Image
carolbrewer
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
G.I. Joe: The Revenge of Cobra (1984)
Love it
This was the miniseries that hooked me in 1984, and I'm still watching it now. I appreciated Chris Latta's work so very much, and it was on fully display in this one. Extremely well written story & dialogue, and delivered beautifully by the best voiceover ensemble ever assembled.
G.I. Joe (1985)
10/10 for the1985 season
I watched (and loved) the GI Joe cartoons with my son during their first run on TV. The miniseries in '83 & '84 were wonderful, as was the 1985 season of their fulltime series run.
1986 is another story, however. I know the casting aside of beloved characters has been chalked up to the selling of new toys, but that doesn't explain the nosedive in animation & writing quality that '86 suffered. Having seen this kind of thing in other TV genres, I tend to think it had more to do with keeping the costs of voice talent down. If it wasn't a cost-cutting move, it was one of the biggest self-owns I've ever seen. Their '83 - '85 voiceover ensemble was the very best I've ever heard, and it was an absolute shame to sabotage that. And, obviously, that speaks volumes for the writing and dialogue they were given to work with in those years too.
Hasbro has acquired the Sunbow series and is currently playing selections of it on their YT channel. I've been watching it daily, and with my granddaughter when I babysit her. I'm happy to introduce another generation to this product, because it's just that good. I hope they try it again, in a cartoon, or in a series of animated films. Just get a good writer, and someone who sounds like and has the talent of Chris Latta for Cobra Commander, and I'll happily watch.
Red Lights (2012)
A Mess
I just saw this film for the first time, and I admit the first half of the movie had me fairly hooked. I was really looking forward to the ultimate confrontation between Margaret (Weaver) and Simon (De Niro). They'd also built Dr. Shackleton as the potential roadblock to her ultimately getting the 'bad guy', which I was interested in seeing play out as well.
Then, they killed her off. Rather unceremoniously, in fact. She wasn't killed by the 'bad guy', nor by anything that could ultimately be contributed to him. She just died of a "rare disorder" (lazy). And that's when the film died as well.
The film hadn't given me a single reason to care about Tom, nor think for a moment that he would be a worthy adversary for Simon. It was like they'd spent 45 minutes promoting this great fight, only to switch the main event at the last minute. I just didn't care anymore.
The second half of the film is just a convoluted mess. It feels forced and rushed. I honestly felt like everyone involved realized they'd killed off the soul of the film, and still had half the thing left to go. Zero sympathy from me for that unforced error. I got the impression the filmmaker was so in love with his final plot twist, that he'd chosen to purposely buck every tried and true movie norm in the book. Secondary characters get killed off to make us more emotionally invested in the protagonist. They expected us to get more invested in the secondary character instead. Didn't work.
I've seen some reviews stating that this film was very well researched. I disagree...on every level. I could write a book about all the truly unbelievable parts of this film and the plot holes, but I'll just hit one. It's one that, as a health care professional, I literally laughed out loud when I saw it.
During a somber voiceover, we see Tom and his (just met and we're madly in love) love interest standing over Margaret's comatose son while the 'plug' is being pulled to end his life. There is absolutely no way a co-worker would ever have that kind of authority. And no, Margaret couldn't leave that kind of instruction in her will either. A POA doesn't maintain authority after death. You cannot will a person to be 'put down' in the event of your death. The hospital wouldn't risk making that decision independently, nor would the state, lest there be a lawsuit from the next of kin. In order for Margaret's son to have no traceable kin whatsoever, Margaret would have to be an only child, her parents would have to be dead and both an only child, her 4 grandparents would have to be an only child, as would her 8 great grandparents, and so on. And that's just her side. The boy's father would also have to be dead and an only child, his parents would have to be dead and both an only child, and the same for his grandparents and his great grandparents. Just by virtue of the fact that not one family member is there, we are absolutely left to believe that a co-worker (and not a close one, considering how little Margaret knew about him) had the authority to pull the plug. Astounding. The kind of garbage I'd see in a made-for-tv movie or a low budget straight-to-DVD.
There's so much more, but that one really stood out to me as the most preposterous thing I've ever seen in a theatrically released film. That, and a college professor (young enough to not have tenure, and in a department the University would love to get rid of) actively and openly sleeping with a freshman student. Oh, and publicly beating up another professor (who was old enough to have tenure, and was in a department that the University loved), and still keeping his job. Just so much nonsense. This film is currently streaming on Prime, and I absolutely cannot recommend anyone wasting their time watching it.
Doctor Sleep (2019)
Not Even the Title Makes Sense
My son, knowing of my hatred for all remakes and decades-later "sequels", pushed me into watching this with him. I will not soon forget that either. But I don't know what's more the travesty...this film, or some of the reviews about it. Anyone suggesting this thing is on par with Kubrick's adaptation of the Shining is way, way off.
First off, child torture or murder is not edgy. It's a turn off. I know it's not a Stephen King novel unless some kid gets killed, but very few directors can pull it off on film. Frank Darabont is one of them. This guy isn't. After 2 child murders, our roving caravan of soul-suckers still couldn't get me to care about seeing them get their just desserts. That's bad. Really bad. Darabont had me wanting to see brutal retribution over a MOUSE. So that's my first argument to anyone suggesting that this is some kind of masterpiece on par with Kubrick (or anyone else for that matter). If the characters were so thin that killing little children (in ways that would make you puke at the theater), didn't leave you wanting to see bloody retribution, then this movie stunk.
I almost have to congratulate the director for being so self-aware about this project that, while these soul-suckers had apparently been wreaking havoc for centuries, they were all taken out by ONE SHOT with a box store hunting rifle. Apparently even he knew that none of his characters had garnered enough heat for anyone to care how they died.
Everything we knew about the "shine" was also turned on its head. While it was portrayed as ESP in the Shining, something widely discussed during the '70s, it has now become a super power worthy of Xmen status in this film. Complete with tons of CGI. And I love the boxes Danny was able to put (and apparently keep) the Overlook entities in. Couldn't Hallorann have done that before the first movie ever happened? I mean, he IS the guy who told Danny to do it, so it's not like he didn't know it could be done. So, you either can't keep the entities in a box, or Hallorann just left them wandering around for poor Danny (and others) to have to deal with. He'd be responsible for the deaths of Jack and the Grady family. That's how little sense ALL of this makes! None.
I also loved how King complained about "character development" in Kubrick's adaptation of the Shining. That's rich given how precious little there was for anyone in this film. I've already discussed how the most heinous of acts created little to no real animosity towards the film's antagonists, but Abra's parents could have been replaced with cardboard cutouts. Her father, who is viciously murdered, is gotten over immediately by his young daughter. Then, when she tells her mother she still talks to him, her mother basically says, "that's nice, dear" and leaves! Would you not want to know what your dead spouse talked about? Would you not have a message for him? Or if you don't believe a word of it, are you not on the phone with the kid's pediatrician? Just horrible. Just atrocious. That's the direction and script that poor actress was given.
Last, and least, is the Overlook...because every character (even the house) has to be completely neutered by the time this film ends. Even Jack, for that matter, who "was ALWAYS the caretaker", is now the friggen bartender. Why? Lloyd was the bartender, and he's just as dead now as he ever was, so why isn't he the bartender? But no, the guy who was "always the caretaker" has to be the Shining trope bartender, because that makes so much sense. But if we're going to have a Jack/Danny moment, then let's get some resolution out of it. Nope. While every other ghost remembered who the hell they were, Jack's got no idea who he is. Grady knew. He knew about his wife and kids, and his "correction" of them, but once again this director acts like he's never seen the original film other than the iconic visuals he grabbed from it.
And finally the main antagonist is killed by the house entities that Danny was able to lock in boxes, that Dick Hallorann never bothered to. And then the house bursts into flames. Don't ask me how. I know Danny was in the boiler room. He also managed to turn all the lights on, which was pretty special after the Overlook had been abandoned decades earlier. Did anyone see him grab some gas for those generators? I sure didn't, and gas doesn't last in generators for decades, so.... And does anyone think that outdoor maze would keep its shape after the Overlook was abandoned? Maybe Lloyd was out cutting the grass and trimming those hedges? I've seen cheap straight to DVD movies with more logic.
This was a long one, but the unbelievably positive reviews deserved a proper rebuttal. The film made the fatal error of constantly reminding the audience of a BETTER movie. It made the other critical error of depicting heinous acts by characters so thin, that the audience was mad at the film makers instead of the antagonists! That's how detached we were. And lastly it made no sense and had no logic. Soul/Shine suckers depicted as terrified of dying, meet long dead soul/shine suckers who exist "forever and ever and ever". What?
This was a completely different story, shoehorned (badly) into the Shining to cash in on a successful book & film from decades ago. And it's too bad. The Shining is an awesome ghost story. Its references to the Donner Party are perfect, and that true story is unsettling enough to convince any viewer of the evil that could lurk in those mountains, and in that hotel. Dozens died, (36 of them, children) and some were sacrificed for the purpose of eating their flesh. And all because 2 con men talked them into taking that route, and then hid all the letters of warning sent from other parties NOT to take that shortcut. It was a betrayal beyond all betrayals, and they should salt the earth where it happened. That's truly terrifying, and just the mere mention of it was and is more than enough to get me invested in the timeless story that is, the Shining. With a LOT of work, Doctor Sleep might succeed as a standalone, but it has no place in the Shining lore.
The Ritual (2017)
Can I rewrite the ending?
Wow, it's so hard to rate this. On the one hand, the cinematography is excellent. The scenery is beautiful. The claustrophobic feeling of the woods is delightfully frightening. As a Blair Witch Project fan, I loved how they took that genre and made it even more appealing. I even enjoyed the set-up for what I thought was going to be more of a psychological thriller. Then, disappointment.
First off, I just finished watch the film this minute, and I cannot tell you one of the character's names. I just have no recollection of them, which gives you an idea of how little time was paid on character development. Secondly, the thread they inserted into the beginning of the film, really didn't travel through to the conclusion at all. There were also other issues that I had. One fellow has a dream, and it comes to pass in identical fashion. Another dreams he's worshiping that beast, and he doesn't end up doing anything of the sort. He just gets killed-off like everyone else. The main character keeps dreaming about the scene which opens the film, but that doesn't really translate to his fate either.
If I could rewrite the film's ending: When the one fella was about to be sacrificed and was yelling "what are you waiting for?", (while the scenes kept switching back from him to the main character attempting to escape from the ropes), I would have had the "what are you waiting for?" turn out to be the worshipers waiting for the main character to escape and emerge from the house. He had the same markings as the rest of the worshipers, and this would have been the opportunity for him to cower in fear (as he had in the opening of the film) or overcome. That's the only real way to tie-in the markings he had on his chest, his nightmares, and the psychology that was introduced at the film's start. They could go either way with his choice, but that choice needed to be in the final scene to hold the entire film together imo.
The Office (2005)
Difficult to Rate
I had a tough time setting a rating for this show. While I'd give the first 3 seasons a 10/10, the rest would get considerably less.
This is a show that should have ended with Jim saying, "Well, then it's a date." and Pam smiling (teary-eyed) into the camera. It ends there for me, because that's when I set my Netflix back to Season 1 Episode 1 and start all over again. I did watch Season 4 when it originally aired, but was so disenchanted that I never watched another new episode again. It had literally lost all of its magic in my opinion.
In later years, thanks to Netflix, I have tried to watch later seasons, but I just can't get into it. The utter disregard for established characters became too much for me to watch. Michael seemed to suddenly become considerably smarter which, as we know, doesn't happen in real life. Pam, in one episode, literally lied her way into a promotion with a raise. That's not the Pam we knew. Soft-spoken Phyllis turned into a cold-hearted blackmailer. And straight-laced Angela is seen running through the parking lot, chasing after a man she's just met. Obviously she was never really straight-laced, but her attention to that perception of herself was over the top. She went to great lengths to hide any displays of affection or desire - but now she's literally running after a man for all to see? Dwight also loses all of his edge and zaniness by the end. And Jim, who put it all on the line and risked everything for love, turns out to be a guy who hides things from his wife and hasn't the guts to tell another woman to get out of his bed.
Speaking of miraculous changes, Roy becomes a wealthy renaissance man. And when he tells Jim, "You really helped me dodge a bullet" (referring to Jim's wife and mother of his children, Pam), Jim makes no attempt to protest. I wasn't sure what we were supposed to take from that episode - that Pam made a big mistake in choosing Jim? Or that Jim made a huge mistake, and his life could have been so much better without her. It was an awfully strange story to tell us, but it encapsulates the ultimate spirit of the series as a whole. Established characters are bent to the point of breaking by the end of the series.
Attention to characters wasn't the only problem with the writing, which steadily deteriorated with every season after the 3rd. I've often heard people say that the show tanked after the Michael Scott character was written off, but that's not true at all. I've seen episodes with Scott in them that are just atrocious, and that I couldn't manage one laugh or even a smile throughout. New characters came and (thankfully) went, and those very few who remained til the end were forgettable in my opinion.
In conclusion, this is an excellent 3 season show, disguised as a 9 season show. It was a touching love story with a highly entertaining and extremely funny backdrop. The characters were consistent during those first 3 years and, if there were any changes, they were explained and sensible. I hear they might be doing a reboot of 'The Office' this year. If they go back to their origins, and put forth these characters as they were originally intended, then it could be successful. Otherwise, we still have seasons 1-3.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
3 Hours of Nothing
I'm not going to waste anymore time on this film than I did just by watching it. This is a disjointed, unimaginably boring film that is best suited as an advertisement for the original Blade Runner. Not because it reminds you of the original, but because it will make you absolutely crave a good film to get the bad taste out of your mouth.
Hell's Kitchen (2005)
Put a Fork in it
The first few seasons of this show are excellent. Great care was taken in the finales to feature the finalists' menus and managerial skills. The finalists were even responsible for designing their own dining rooms and choosing glassware, cutlery and pairing wines - really fleshing out their personalities and creativity for the audience to see. That all ended years ago, and it's unfortunate.
Since those first years, the show has felt more and more rushed. Production cuts have been evident, such as the axing of the 2-part season finales, and have hurt the product terribly. Gordon seems less invested, legitimate contestants are ignored in favor of whoever acts the most foolish, and there's almost no discernible urgency to win the prize. The format is formulaic and predictable, and the contestant dramas feel contrived.
I've just watched the first episode of season 17 and I am already tapping out. It was advertised as an "all-star" season, which led me to believe that we were going to see a serious competition between the former runners-up, or 3rd place finishers at least. Not so. In a season where they INVITED these people to return and vie for a head chef job, they have purposely brought back loud-mouths, lazy folks, drama magnets and several who aren't even black jacket alumni. We're supposed to believe that Gordon, wanting to fill a head chef job at the new Hell's Kitchen restaurant, would make his first calls to some of these folks? Not evenly slightly realistic.
This "all-star" season consists of zero previous runners-up, about four 3rd place finishers, and everyone else is a 4th - 6th place finisher. Without explanation for this randomness, these choices cheapen the show and the new restaurant. It literally looks like a case of "this is the best we could get". What a shame. I was really hoping that this season could revitalize the competition aspect of this show, but that was not to be. In fact, it stands poised to do even more damage to the brand. Other cooking shows bring in the creme de la creme for their all- star competitions, while this just looked bad. Really bad. Put a fork in it, it's done.