Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Above and beyond adequate
Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not American and the adequacivity of my view on this matter may be a little off. Mid 90s were the times the US was the only super power in existence, and didn't have any competition in any field. This, in my opinion, created an atmosphere of incredulity and cynicism. And a show like this could only be created in such an environment. It was the right show for the right time; a more serious and realistic take than Married with Children, if you wish.
But even in such times, NewsRadio "was on the brink of cancellation every season that it was on". Understandable; in what other show have you seen such a perfect display of satire as you see in Rat Funeral (s2e03)?
I don't understand people who question Maura Tierney's adequatulence for this show. I think she can be a great comedic actor when the occasion demands.
NewsRadio was my favorite show of pre-political correctness times. Yes, I didn't get the references to local people and some events, but I understood the intent. They don't do shows with similar attitude anymore. TV shows today try to pass self serving hypocrisy as cynicism, but NewsRadio was cynical through and through.
Sex and the City (1998)
Mostly watchable, maybe less so the last season and a half
I'm not the intended audience of this show. I didn't watch it during its original run. I saw a couple of episodes last month, and continued watching it.
I've found SATC more entertaining than I thought I would. I'm not a moralist. I don't mind women using foul language. And most importantly, I really don't care about any messages a TV show conveys to its viewers.
Of course the characters, and the situations they find themselves in, are exaggerated and at times shallow. But this is a 25 minute per episode show, trying to wrap the stories of at least 4 characters; what else could you expect? Real life and real women may not be like they are depicted in this show all the time, but they are so from time to time, and SATC captures these moments and highlights them for dramatic effect. Not every talk in life is about politics or environment or global issues. And not everyone is politically correct when amongst friends. You can think of this show as fragments of life, seen through a shape distorting magnifying glass.
Are the stories in SATC ultimately pointless? Maybe so, but this also implies to me that this is not a didactic show, and for me that's a good thing. Let's face it, it's been more than 10 years this show went off the air. You're probably watching this because you don't have anything else to do and you want to escape your life for a little while. If this is the case, SATC will give you just the right amount of real life to be engaging, but not so much as to be annoying.
My most serious complain is the transformation of Carrie after mid-season 5. The character was never mature enough for her age, but after episode 2 or 3 of season 5, she becomes a spoilt little princess, and incredibly superficial. And Charlotte, who was always more a stereotype than a real character, becomes a caricature of herself in season 6.
I don't want to rate SATC. I'm not labeling it as good or bad. I tried to write a non-judgmental review, trying my best to show what it is, rather than what it should have been.
Couldn't bring myself to rate it lower
Had this show been recent, I wouldn't have rated it 10 stars. The pacing of the episodes is usually slow. Some episodes are not properly finished. The writing is lazy after season 1. Some of the actors' comedic signature moves take longer than necessary. And I find the social and psychological topics more than a bit tiring.
I saw this show on reruns, and it wasn't exactly a part of my childhood memories. And yet, I liked it. Binge-watching it after all these years, I still like it despite its many flaws. I like how the actors don't take themselves very seriously, even in the more serious episodes. I like how, mostly Ms Henner and some of the other actors, cannot contain themselves (or maybe even don't try to) in some scenes. I like the not-really-trying-hard feeling of the production. The show has some sort of 'we can do it more professionally but we're choosing not to' feel. I think the last show I saw with a similar attitude was Just Shoot Me.
There's no need to rate informatively a 35 year old sitcom. My rating is totally sentimental but who cares... 10 star out of 10, for being whatever it is.
And Christopher Lloyd is amazing as Reverend Jim. Reverend Jim's lines are literally ahead of their times. This character can find a place in any sitcom of today, as is.
Not that good... (take three)
I saw The Empire Strikes Back (TESB) when I was 13 or 14, and I didn't like it back then. I've seen it many times since, and in my later views I really wanted to like it, but I ended up disliking it even more. The first sign of silliness in my eyes was the snow-speeders equipped with harpoons and towing cables. Why should anyone install a harpoon to a flying machine? It turns out to topple AT-ATs. But how did they know they'd fight against walking moto-quadrupeds? Well, they didn't. It dawned on me that that was nothing more than lazy storytelling. Create the outcome first (tackle walking machines), invent how to generate it (using cables) later. And do it again, this time with Luke.
Why did Luke flee the cave into the cold snow storm instead of killing the wampa? Because he had to come to the brink of death. And why is that? Because just before passing out he needs to see Obi-Wan's ghost. And what's it doing there? Obi-Wan's spirit is there to tell Luke where to find Yoda. Sorry but this is nonsense. First, the flow of the story is backwards, because at the time Luke leaves the cave, he has no reason to do so; he should have killed the wampa and stayed inside. Second, this part of the story must be about setting our main character in motion. Luke needs a motivation to pursue his Jedi training. One may argue that this must be the natural outcome of the first film. But still, Mr Lucas owes the viewer a decent sequence showing how Luke discovers where Yoda lives. The way Luke is informed of Dagobah in TESB is simply bad storytelling.
That also leads to a hollow first act. The action in there has nothing to do with Luke's storyline. The Battle of Hoth is completely pointless. The first act must be all about sending Luke to Dagobah. Luke will go there anyway with or without this useless battle. But instead of watching Luke discover Yoda and Dagobah, we have to watch some silly battle.
As a consequence, we have a first act disjointed from the rest of the film. The action is isolated from, and not related to, the further events. You can start watching the film 35 minutes into it, when Luke gives R2 the coordinates of the Dagobah system. There's nothing that makes sense before, explaining why Luke wants to finish his training, or how he knows where to go. For further study, compare this to how the story unfolds in A New Hope.
Things don't go well in the second act either. The story forks, and I have the feeling that Mr Lucas didn't know what to do with Han Solo and Leia, and decided to hide them inside the stomach of a giant space eel. Luke in Dagobah scenes don't fare better. Luke is a pilot and is supposed to be top physical form. Why all the physical training? And it contradicts with what Yoda says: luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. Actually the problem is deeper. Jedi training is obviously not well thought of. It may look impressive on paper, with stream of consciousness and the like, but all we see on screen is a guy running with a backpack full of rocks, or trying to levitate things around him.
The film is sort of alright 75 minutes into it, after Yoda moves Luke's X-wing out of the swamp. But not enough to make it more than 4 stars out of 10. Don't forget that some of the things the fans pan in Return of the Jedi and in the prequels are present in TESB some way, though not as pronounced as in the prequels. I have to come back to that but the first act of The Empire Strikes Back is a disaster. I've tried to make objective points anyone could check for themselves, you like this film or not. If you think that TESB is flawless, please think twice.
It's bad, but it couldn't have been any better anyway
I'm neither the first nor the last one to say this: there's not enough material to fill an eight-hour trilogy in The Hobbit. And that finally shows in this film really bad.
I was confused when I saw Wolverine in this film. Someone later pointed out to me that he was Beorn.
When the questioned orc told Thranduil "you know nothing" I finished the sentence "Jon Snow". Good thing nobody's heard me.
Speaking of Thranduil, it's really a bad sight when you dye your hair platinum blonde but you let the eyebrows thick and dark.
The actions scenes were easier to follow in this one than the first film. And the static scenery looked very real. But that's all the good in Desolation.