Change Your Image
benjamin-60982
Reviews
That '90s Show (2023)
Lesser Child of a Greater Parent
It's fine. The super low reviews are unfair and I'm glad it exists. I'm not sure that it's not better than late season That '70s Show, but the bar for my being willing to put up with a multi-camera, studio-audience wooing along, traditional sitcom these days is the lofty standards of early season That ''70s Show.
Fundamentally I feel like the characters of the original were more clearly defined in the minds of viewers by the second or third episode than the new characters introduced here are at the end of this 10 episode season. I also feel like while I'm not sure I would credit the cast of the original with great range, they all played their parts to a tee right out of the gate.
The teen (unlike with most the cast of the original, actually real life teen) actors do a mostly decent job, but they just aren't terribly strongly defined and compelling characters.
The cameos by "legacy" characters are a nice nostalgia trip, but feel don't really fit naturally in the show, in part because they are such a focus when they are on screen, and make you wish they got more than cameos. Eric only appears in the first episode, but gets a starring role in that episode, that makes him not appearing for the rest of the season feel weird. Kelso and Jackie have a literal one scene walk-on role in the entire season, despite their son being a main character, which is basically an open door to involve them repeatedly.
It's not really evocative of the '90s in the way the original was of the '70s because it takes place at a Forman residence mostly stuck in the '70s. This seemed reasonable enough to me, but if you wanted a show devoted to '90s nostalgia rather than That '70s Show nostalgia it doesn't really do it.
All that said while this sitcom's predecessor was notable for being born fully formed and more or less at its peak, many sitcoms start out a bit of a mess and improve substantially in their second seasons, and it seems this has already been greenlit for a second season.
And it's vastly better than That '80s Show. Then again, most things are.
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
Reviewers need to calm down, and maybe rewatch the Trek they compare this to.
People seem to be writing reviews with really thick nostalgia goggles on. The number of 1 star reviews is absurd. This show is, at it's worse, still better than the average TNG first season episode. I found it well made and entertaining, liked the new characters, and, at the end of the day, Jean-Luc Picard is just a character I find it comforting and enjoyable to spend time with. Maybe this series isn't your particular cup of earl grey hot, and no, it doesn't look a lot like classic Paramount era Star Trek, that doesn't make it some sort of 1 star travesty, that just makes it different.
There is a legitimate issue that they lay on the bleakness of everything and the misery of everyone incredibly thick through the establishing episodes. I can see how this is offputting to those wanting the eternally optimistic Trek of TNG. But part of what made the first couple seasons of TNG so mediocre is Roddenberry's dictate that all the characters had to have no conflict with each other. So while the 2020 angst of this one is overblown, I'll take overwrought conflict over no conflict any day. And it was establishing a starting point. The season ended is a much less bleak and dystopian place than it began. I'd say it was a tacked on happy ending, but honestly the tacked on happy endingness with everything tied up in a neat package was the cheesiest, most 90s Trek thing about it.
It definitely takes its sweet time to get anywhere (episode 1 seems like it has Picard ready to set out on his quest, yet somehow it takes until the end of episode 3 to get off planet.). The fact that we in the audience learn where the person he is setting out to find is in episode two makes it taking him until the end of episode 5 seem like some unnecessary stretching. The expansive whole season plot is another way in which it is sort of the opposite of TNG, where every episode had to end with everything resolved (and any guest characters gone and never mentioned again). It feels like some pace in between these extremes would be better, but I prefer a bit on the slow side to underdeveloping things.
I'm sure if you set out to hate this you will succeed in doing so. I'm sure if you are lukewarm on it having a couple of the episodes in the first half not really seem to significantly advance the plot is a bummer. I, binged it all over a couple days, and might have not got into it enough to get hooked if I had to wait and watch it one episode a week. But, having waited for the season to finish, it was a lot easier to put up with a lackluster episode or a frustrating episode ending because I could cue up the sequel immediately.
I watched it on Amazon Prime's CBS service, and they place the ads seemingly at random. Cuts mid-sentence, completely spoiling several dramatic moments. It's the only thing that really bothered me about this series.
Evil Alien Conquerors (2003)
Not good per se, but loveable, quotable, and original.
This movie feels like a sketch turned into a feature film, and compared to the various times that has been actually been done (ie: every SNL movie) it compares favorably. It does not quite have enough to sustain a film, and every joke gets hammered into the ground, but most of them hold up better than one would expect. For all its repetition it is anything but formulaic, and many things that should not work work through sheer earnestness, originality, and a skill for clever variations. It is one of the few films I have ever seen where the gimmick of it being ultra-low budget was fairly consistently charming rather than just a matter of necessity. In terms of laughs per-dollar spent it is actually pretty damned effective.
It's really stupid, but everyone involved commits so hard to the stupidity that it occasionally becomes weirdly inspired. Objectively I'd put it somewhere in the four or five star range as a work of film, but it gets a couple extra stars for being memorable, original, unique, and generally endearing.
Mamma Mia! (2008)
This is the movie I most actively dislike.
Basically everyone involved decided it would be hilarious if they just phoned it in really hard, and felt that their celebrity and ABBA would make it okay. It did not.
Being a musical is not an excuse for terrible dialogue. Being campy isn't an excuse for ubiquitously awful ADR. Him being a celebrity is not an excuse for casting Pierce Brosnan to sing and attempt an American accent. Being the most respected actress in the world is not an excuse for Meryl Streep to phone it in. Being a stupid movie is not an excuse for everyone involved to not try.
I'm torn about calling it the worst movie I've ever seen as a matter of the end product, but it is the one I hold in the most contempt. Nearly every other movie I've seen (including many a MST3K worthy outing) has given me the impression that most the people involved at least put in a workmanly effort, and usually that many people tried their best, to make it good. If one takes "the Room" for example, although the film is objectively terrible there is a sense that those involved are doing their often-pathetic, sometimes-deranged best. Even going down to detritus like "Manos: the Hands of Fate", many of the largely talentless local actors involved seemed to have been very invested in being in the movie and gave it their all.
In "Mamma Mia!", with minor exceptions (Christine Baranski, for example, played the exact same part she always does and always does well), everyone involved in this clearly had a lot of fun using the campy, fun feel of the film as an excuse to not do their jobs competently. It is a black stain on their resumés so far as I am concerned, and I'm sorry ABBA, I now associate your music with purposeful mediocrity every time I hear it.