grossincoming3 Reviews

The Godfather (1972)

Awful film

[1/10 · 17 November 2014]

The story is disjointed, the acting is terrible (especially Corleone who sounds like he's got a stick up his ass), the film is too long, the wedding scene is almost perpetual, which makes me ask, how did this get a 9.2? I'm shocked to be honest, what an awful, awful movie this is and I don't say that a lot about movies since I tend to appreciate what they are and what they are trying to convey, but this? This is an embarrassment and has to go down as the most overrated movie of all time in my book. There's no good acting performances in the movie, no memorable lines, no excitement, nothing. I'm genuinely disgusted that this movie has such high accolades because to me, it's crap. Absolute crap.

Brando's portrayal of Corleone has got to go down as one of the worst acting performances I've ever seen as well. The accent he uses is difficult to understand, the scene where he's shot in that assassination attempt is laughable as he over dramatizes the whole thing and his general acting performance and portrayal of Corleone, who is supposed to be a feared crime lord, is contrived and doesn't look believable. I'm honestly shocked that someone who is rated as one of the best actors who ever lived can perform this badly. This is the first film I've seen Brando in so I think it's unfair to judge his ability as an actor based on this poor performance, but my expectations will definitely be lowered when I watch another movie and see him as part of the cast.

South Park (1997– )

South Park

[7/10 · 7 October 2014]

South Park was a great, great show back in the day. Its satirical, clever humour, its hidden gags, its characters. This was a show ingeniously constructed and was far and away the best cartoon back in the day. Seasons 1-6 are the best in my opinion, that was when the stories were at their peak and the jokes were most fresh. Personal favourites were "Pip", "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime" and "The New Terrence And Phillip Movie Trailer".Seasons 7-11 were watchable, but lacked that definitive edge that the first 6 seasons had. After Season 13 finished, I stopped watching; the show had gotten too ridiculous with its plots and the show had lost a lot of its humour.

I feel the reason why South Park went on a steady decline when the 6th season finished was not down to lack of ideas or originality in their episodes, it was down to character development. Cartman was affected the worst; in the earlier seasons he was a spoilt, cynical egotistical character that was the center of all jokes in the show. He was a brilliant character and whenever he spoke, you could guarantee that a joke was soon to follow. Slowly though, he transformed from this childlike character to this evil, spiteful character that had a lack of apathy for his friends and the other South Park residents. I also did not like the replacement of Pip Pirrup. Pip was a great character and had a lot more potential that his replacement, Butters. Pip was my favourite character in the show; he was a caring, happy-go-lucky character that also possessed a mean streak when taunted by another character. He was a very solid, dimensional character and his presence drew in an international audience and I'm still confused to this day why he was pretty much ostracized from the show. Butters is a weak, generic character who offers little in terms of plot development or storyline. I also don't like how they pushed Kenny out of the main gang as well, he was a great character in his own right, a fearless, brave character who is willing to fight for his friends; the juxtaposition of the gutless Butters. Giving good characters such as Officer Barbrady, Mr Mackay, Big Gay Al, Chef, Jimbo and Ned less air time and promoting characters such as Randy Marsh (the most overrated character in the show) was also a big mistake.

Overall, the first six seasons are easily a 10/10, but the ones after are less funny and have weaker story lines, which is why I give this a 7/10.

The Football League Show (2009– )

Lower league football, higher quality show

[8/10 · 6 October 2014]

The Football League Show is a programme that succeeds Match Of The Day. It covers the lower leagues of English football; the Championship, League One and League Two. The anchor of the show is Manish Bhasin, who I think is one of the best sports presenters in the country. He is accompanied by either lower league legend Steve Claridge or Leroy Rosenior, who holds the unenvied record of having the shortest managerial tenure known, being a staggering 10 minutes long. Sometimes they are accompanied by a manager or player that is currently plying his trade in lower league football (this season we have had John Still, the Luton Town manager and Dave Kitson, a former Oxford United striker) and I think this offers a different perspective on the game as they are able to tell us what they think whilst currently in their respective jobs.

What I like about the Football League Show is the depth that they go to cover every game. For the big games, they use extensive highlights and the smaller games, they give you a shorter coverage, but you still get to see all the key action. I think the analysis is spot on. I like a pundit who challenges the opinions of others and Steve Claridge is one of those pundits. Claridge is the star of the show and carries the show at times, his punditry is simply breathtaking. His knowledge of lower league football oozes out of him whenever he speaks. His opinions are concise, eloquently put and detailed. He has a future in punditry for sure and it surprised me when he wasn't picked to go with Gary and the team to Brazil to cover the World Cup ahead of the likes of Henry who are just boring and robotic. Rosenior, whilst not as good as Clardige, still offers great insight into the game and also challenges the points of others.

The show also has a weekly feature where Mark Clemmit (known as 'Clem') pays a visit to a team that have been given extensive coverage by the media in recent weeks (such as a team who are on a good run of form, bad run of form, new manager etc.). I like this feature because I think it's interesting to see what goes on behind the scenes of the club, what the managers ideas are, what the chairman plans to do and how the players and fans feel about the running of their club. Clemmit is the perfect person to do this job; he's passionate about the sport and asks sensible questions that are to the point and leave behind little to no ambiguity.

The only problem I have with this show is the chemistry between the pundits and the anchor. Whenever Clardige addresses a point or responds to a question, Bhasin appears uncomfortable and looks like he just wants to move on quickly. He works better with Rosenior, but Rosenior is the weaker pundit out of the two and because of his more basic insights, Manish never tries to rush him on.

Overall, it's a great show and well worth staying up for. It's really improved since it first debuted in 2009 and I hope it continues to do so.

Match of the Day (1964– )

You can't win anything with kids.

[6/10 · 4 October 2014]

This show used to be fantastic. Alan Hansen was a genius, pure genius. He was unbiased, ruthless,and diplomatic with his punditry. When Gerrard had a good game, you knew that he had a good game and when he had a bad one, you knew. Every pass he made, every run he made, every goal, every interchange, he'd analyze in the space of 2 minutes. A true connoisseur of the game, he could paint a picture in your head with the stroke of a few sentences. He revolutionized the world of sports punditry and turned it from an opinion based business into an art form. You also had Lawrenson, the Robin of the pair. He was there mainly for comedy relief, but he also had his moments of brilliance. Like Adam West and Burt Ward in 1966, the chemistry between them was top class. Opinions bouncing off one another, clear, concise, carrying a presence on screen, there was no stopping the former Liverpool defenders when on form and whenever Linekar tried to sneak something between them, it was always intercepted, reminiscent of their playing days. Now the show is a mess. The punditry is too robotic and there's more chemistry between a bowl of cornflakes and a plank of wood than there is with the likes of Phil Neville and Danny Murphy. The BBC have tried to bring in new blood and ostracize the old guard and it's come back to bite them. Here, I'll analyze some of the pundits:

Shearer: The only good pundit left. Has a great knowledge of the game. Shares good banter with Linekar, is entertaining on screen, his analysis is always on point and concise. Whenever he's on, he carries his punditry partner.

Murphy: Bland. He just says what you want to hear half of the time and is more suited for ITV with Chiles and his motley crew than he is the BBC. Most of the time when a team plays atrocious, he tries to mitigate it. Instead of lambasting the performance he'll feebly grumble, "Well they didn't do that bad did they. Put the defensive errors, the lack of chances created and the scoreline aside, they didn't do bad and they're sure to improve." Joke of a pundit.

Neville: Read 'Murphy'. There's no wonder why a petition was set up to get him axed from the show and no we don't need reminding of the fact that there was every week Phil. His brother should give him some lessons in punditry.

Ferdinand: #2Sidez to this guy. Sometimes he offers a refreshing insight, other times he's pretty dull. Hopefully we see more of him when he hangs his boots up in a few years time, I feel he has potential to be a good pundit.

Savage: Hilarious guy who's not utilized enough by the show. A wasted talent.

Gullit: Read Murphy. Just comments on the Dutch players most of the time.

And that's why MOTD has gone downhill in recent years.

Boohbah (2003)

Ragdoll Productions have done it again!

[9/10 · 4 October 2014]

Whenever I watch a TV program or movie, I enter it with no expectations and I approached Boohbah in the same way. I had heard of Ragdoll Productions prior to Boohbah, they had produced the classics Tots TV and Teletubbies; two shows endorsed internationally, but not until I had watched the end of my first episode, did I realise that this show was made by the quintessential children's production company.

Boohbah introduces us to five characters named Humbah, Zumbah, Jingbah, Jumbah and the infamous Zing Zing Zingbah. Not only are the names creative, clever and imaginative but they also set the standards of the show. The Boohbah's have vibrant, recognisable colours for the target age group, which I think is important as it keeps the target audience entertained and focused throughout. The stories are also fun and imaginative and easy for children to grasp. I particularly liked the episode 'Skipping Rope'.

I also like the fact that the production team assembled a relatively unknown cast; names such as Robin Stevens, Emma Ainsley and Alex Poulter (who I think put in a sterling performance playing as Zumbah who in my opinion is a very hard character to portray). I'm surprised none of them have been given their big break yet as they are all talented children's actors, but with new ideas for children's shows coming along as often as the British weather changes, I'm sure some of them will find a role soon.

Overall, this is a fantastic show. Many people don't understand the purpose of shows like Boohbah, citing them as dumb and a waste of time, but people need to realise that not all children's shows need to be educational or have a hidden message or moral behind the story. When we watch films such as Die Hard 2, do we watch them to be educated or do we watch them to be entertained? Kids aren't computers and shows like Boohbah are needed to relax their brains. I hope to see more shows coming out of Ragdoll Productions in the near future.