scs0 Reviews

Flip or Flop (2013–2022)

Meh... Usual predictable drama and outcomes

[5/10 · 2 July 2014]

In the same way video shot containing failed offers and lost auctions would be edited out of the show, the show would gravitate towards footage containing the more complex and challenging flips because that will naturally bring more interesting content. When flipping houses, complexity and challenges usually result in a higher cost of repair so that should mean the net profit should be lower than one of their uneventful and unaired typical flips.

But this is not what we see. Instead, in usual reality TV flipping drama, we have Ken and Barbie fretting about losing money only for the final minute to show they actually made $50-$100K. Every time. This simply cannot be true and here is why:

In a number of shows they have mentioned that they have a number of other flips in progress simultaneously. The ones we see usually take 4-8 weeks to complete and net around $50-$100K. Also in a number of shows they try to make it sound as if they are stretched thin, borrow money from relatives, and act as if one unprofitable flip will force them into poverty. The only way this could be true is if they either lose money on houses we do not see or make a minimal amount on a typical flip. At any rate, I want to see that. I want to see why a house failed to flip profitably! I think that would be extremely educational and be a far more interesting show than one where we already know the ending!

It's like watching an episode of Gilligan's Island where they have a chance on getting rescued. C'mon, even if the show was airing new you know they aren't getting rescued.

I'm not some airhead socialist condemning someone their right to earn their profit, but I do want to see the truth in now successful these flips really are so that the faux financial drama that is put into the show at least feels real. The show where they asked Barbie's father for a $15,000 loan and then cut to break as we sat on the edge of our seats waiting to find how what happened is a bit much.

The Dollanganger Saga: Flowers in the Attic (2014) Season 1, Episode 1

Sadly this film did not star Victoria Chase in the Lifetime original "Flowers in the Attic"

[8/10 · 4 June 2014]

I know people compare these to the books and the original film so here is my personal exposure to the franchise: I caught the last 15 minutes of Petals on the Wind, DVR'd & watched Flowers in the Attic, learned it was a book series with an earlier film adaptation, watched the 1987 version of the film, and then watched Petals on the Wind.

I found the Lifetime version better than the original largely because Ellen Burstyn's performance of the grandmother was superior to that of Louise Fletcher's from the earlier film. While both grandmothers came across as an evil b**ch, Burstyn's grandmother constantly showed elements of depth where she seemed to be intellectually focusing intentionally on WHAT they were (the product of incest) because she didn't want the emotional attachment that would result if she learned WHO they were. (A good scene was the one where the children made her a poster for Christmas) As evil as she was, she constantly exhibited blips of humanity that always made me wonder if she would develop a bit into the role of an antihero. Of course she never did, but Fletcher's grandmother was a much more predictable 2-dimensional character. The odd thing was that I had looked forward to Fletcher's performance since she masterfully portrayed Kai Winn on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine who could be a cold-hearted b**ch one day and decent the next.

Aside from that I find the films complemented each other nicely as little holes in one version were filled with the other with the Lifetime version seeming to have an overall better quality to it. It is unfortunate that the 1987 version had a completely different ending because Lifetime's ending allowed for revenge in its sequel. That being said, both films felt like they were rushing their stories to fit into 90 minutes and I think both would have been improved with an additional 30 minutes of time. For example, in neither version did I really feel like the kids spent much time in that attic and until the times they started getting poisoned and the grandmother withheld food as a punishment, I found them surprisingly well fed.

Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)

Tired of the negative reviews

[8/10 · 28 October 2012]

You don't go to a Adam Sandler movie and rip it for not being a documentary and you don't go to a Jason Statham movie and rip it for not being a romance. Likewise, you should not go to a found-footage movie and be disappointed because it failed to have the deep story and thrilling action of The Avengers or The Dark Knight Rises.

Found footage movies are what they are: snippets of "real" life spliced together to make a coherent story. They are often designed to give the impression that the events actually happened, and they have to dance a fine line in order to explain why key moments are luckily captured on camera. I'm very hot or cold with this genre and avoided it for years after The Blair Witch Project put a bad taste in my mouth but the PA movies seem to get it right. I judged this one an "8" because it's an "8" for this genre, but if you don't like these kinds of movies then you are guaranteed to hate this one too. I found it a good entry because:

1) The filming of the events seemed plausible 2) The main characters were likable 3) The PA story was advanced (yes, it actually did but the story was a bit confusing) 4) The cinematography was done well and numerous locations were used (i.e. this was not a nausea-inducing "Blair Witch" thing)

I didn't rate it a 9 or 10 because I found some holes with the plot.

Personally I find this the second best in the franchise with the best being PA-2. PA2 was great in that it gave meaning to the first, expanded upon the first, and acted as both a prequel and sequel. The 3rd was enjoyable but seemed the least original and the paranormal scenes the least creepy.

I really find it baffling how fans of 1, 2, and 3 can hate this entry with such passion. Many wanted scarier scenes, and I ask: like what? Toby fully embodied as a Freddy Kruger-style boogy man? That might have been good, but this is not what Paranormal Activity is all about: it's supposed to be like a creepy camp fire story and exploits all of those creepy little "bumps in the night" that we actually encounter in life. No one ever encounters a three headed dragon in their basement and those kinds of things are better left to movies built for them.

I am hopeful that the series eventually comes to a conclusion with either the coven or Toby getting what's coming to them, but I'm not going to slam this entry because it didn't happen here.

Cars (2006)

Recycled story but excellent execution

[10/10 · 4 January 2008]

The theme of this movie is simple, but the movie is well executed. Here we see a hotshot young professional who is ready to take on the fast-paced world. While on the road to begin this new life he stumbles into small town America where he accidentally breaks a law and the local court forces him to remain in town while he carries out a simple sentence. It's no big deal because he'll be on his way soon enough, unfortunately the appeal of small town life and an attractive local girl slowly sink in. A old and grumpy local who shares the same profession eventually teaches the young hot shot a few things about life. A few days ago he looked down upon this life but by the time he leaves he acknowledges the value in their life. Back in his fast-past life, he begins to miss that brief experience, and soon some friends from that other life return. In the end Micheal J. Fox leaves LA and returns to the small town of Grady he learned to love so much...

...er... wait a minute.... HEY! Cars is the same movie as "Doc Hollywood"!

Yes, the story behind Cars is a blatant knockoff of "Doc Hollywood" and yet it doesn't really matter. The brilliance of Pixar movies is that even when the plot line is simple (or borderline plagiarism) the rich details, quality characters, and excellent storytelling compensate. Most other blockbusters you'll watch once or twice but a Pixar movie screams to be viewed over and over. Therefore a shocking, groundbreaking, or clever ending is not necessary: it will lose those traits after the first view. Pixar movies excel in the other areas that cause you to enjoy the movie as much on the 10th viewing as on the first.

Intervention (2005– )

Sometimes uplifting, but the format needs work

[7/10 · 20 June 2007]

I find I enjoy this show, but the format needs some work. First off, the good attributes. I like how this show will take us through the day-to-day life of an addict because the producers have a knack at getting the addict to show us how bad they've allowed their lives to become. This is followed by an intervention which is then followed by an outcome. Intervention doesn't candy-coat things and sometimes the outcome (often short term due to the constraints of time between filming and airing) is a negative outcome. This makes the positive outcomes all the better.

Another thing I like about the show is the quality of the camera work. Given the reality that these cameramen have to squeeze anywhere and don't have the benefit of re shooting scenes the photography is surprisingly good and stable. It's actually superior to scripted shows like "The Shield" where the photography is so bad it can induce nausea.

Now for the bad. An episode will sometimes contain two completely different and unrelated cases that will be mixed together during the show. You'll get caught up in the story of one addict then suddenly you're thrown into the story of another. Get caught up in that story then suddenly you're back to the first addict...or are you? By now you may have forgotten which case the individual currently on screen belong to. This constant flip-flopping between addicts really gets disruptive during the intervention scenes because the show will even mix together the two completely unrelated interventions! I once heard the marketing B.S. reason for this poor design: "The show can get so intense that switching to another addict allows the viewer time to absorb what they're watching." Oh please. Clearly the reason this is done is because they have two cases that aren't big enough for an hour show so they mix two together. By mixing them instead of giving each a half hour block, like they should, it forces the viewer to watch the entire thing (and the commercials) if they are interested in one case but not the other.

I used to find these "blender" episodes so annoying that I'd only tell my TiVo to record episodes containing one addict, but then it became easier just to record all of them.

Mystery Diagnosis (2005– )

Scary but interesting show

[8/10 · 1 May 2007]

I'm sure that anyone reading this knows that this show is a documentary that takes us through the process of curing a disease that is difficult to diagnose. Well, if you didn't know that you do now.

What scares me about this show is not the fact that anyone can stumble into some bizarre diseases, it's the consistent tales of doctors blowing off the patient's symptoms by misdiagnosing the disease as something trivial. Gotta throat that's sore and been around for weeks? Oh, it's just a cold. Near 30 and you suddenly lose the ability to breathe? Oh, it's just Asthma. Have a red lump the size of a Grapefruit on your forehead? It's just a pimple, put a little Clearacile on it and you'll be fine. OK, that last one didn't happen but you get the point.

It's like these people go to a mechanic with a car that can barely be driven downhill and the mechanic says "Oh, you just need an oil change".

When a patient comes in with bizarre symptoms that only match a simple disease at a superficial level, why don't these doctors ever seem to go the extra mile and take some advanced tests? They abuse the trust of their patients when they telling them they have some BS disease and as a doctor they should know when a disease is only mimicking the symptoms of another disease!

Star Trek: Voyager: Nothing Human (1998) Season 5, Episode 8

Good Star Trek concept, poor implementation

[4/10 · 30 March 2007]

The basic premise of this episode is simple: is it moral to treat an individual for a disease when the cure was acquired through immoral means? From Nazi experimentation on the Jews to modern day embryotic stem cell research, this is an important real-world topic and is perfect territory for Star Trek to explore. Unfortunately, the Star Trek nerd in me hates this episode as a Voyager episode but thinks it would have worked great on Star Trek: Deep Space 9 (DS9).

In a nutshell, the crew encounters an injured member of insect-like alien race that attaches itself to Torres to sustain its life. The doctor (an Emergency Holographic Doctor: EMH) cannot figure out how to safely remove the organism so he creates a new holographic doctor from a portion of the ship's medical database that's not part of his own to assist. Unfortunately this doctor was based off a real Cardassian doctor that used cruel methods to acquire his research. Torres says she'd rather die than be assisted by this man and the audience is then treated to the controversy surrounding all sides of this situation.

First; the (sometimes nerdy) reasons why I think this was a bad Voyager episode: 1) The doctor is software. He shouldn't need to create another doctor to analyze this data. He should be able to read it in the same way Microsoft Word can read any word document I give it.

2) A few episodes ago the doctor was sent away so Paris and Kim attempt to create a backup doctor. This proves impossible. Then in this episode the Doctor and Kim quickly create a brand new EMH. And it was just a bit too easy to create this doctor and his personality.

3) We see Bajorian crew members (a race serious oppressed by the Cardassians) but I don't remember seeing any Bajorians on the ship before or after this episode. How convenient! 4) Torres would rather die than be treated by this Cardassian recreation or his research. While I don't doubt her convictions, this position would sound more plausible coming from an actual Bajorian than a Human-Klingon hybrid.

Second: Why I believe this would have made a better episode for DS9: 1) The DS9 doctor is human. Genetically enhanced, but human nonetheless. Therefore it would be believable for him to not know or not be able to assimilate Cardassian research. Being close to Cardassian space he could easily get the Cardassian in question or a protégé.

2) DS9 had an actual Bajorian (Kira) in its main cast. It would have seemed more natural for this Bajorian individual to be adamant against using this Cardassian research than Voyager's Torres. Bajorans popped up on that show all the time so their opinions would have seemed natural and not a convenient plot device.

3) I was nerdy enough to check the dates and this show was dated about a year after DS9's Kira gave birth to a human couple's child. If the concept of this show existed at that time, a DS9 version could have exploited that for further drama. With Kira being pregnant you immediately add more sides to the story. With the child not being hers you have a situation where the actual parents can cause additional friction. Oh well.

So I disliked how it was shoehorned into Voyager and cannot watch this episode without thinking it belonged on DS9.

King of the Hill: Ceci N'est Pas Une King of the Hill (2004) Season 8, Episode 9

One of my favorite episodes

[9/10 · 19 March 2007]

This is one of my favorite episodes because it beautifully illustrates the mentality behind the artistic community on so many levels.

Early in the episode Hank visits an art store to buy a work of art. Here we encounter the usual gang of self-proclaimed progressives who lace their work with political overtones. In the real world, these free-thinking, non-conformist, political artistic types all seem to share the same adolescent and socialist point of view and, amazingly, that's how they're presented here. After this scene is a funny line by Hank as he tries to persuade Peggy to create some art: "Even the ones who do it for a living aren't very good at it." The amusing scenes continue. After Peggy creates her work it is reviewed. Once again the artists who profess to be so independent and broad minded come across like a simplistic high school social cliché. All of them look at Peggy's work and when asked their opinion they merely say "interesting" and then pass the question off to the next person by asking them what they think. After everyone fails to display the ability to form an opinion without instruction from the collective "hive mind" one artist finally peeps up. Is it an opinion? NOPE! It's a question about the artist! In order for the reviewers to form their opinion they question the artist to see if he or she conforms with the rules on what makes a good artist. Clearly, if the artist conforms to the proper model then the reviewers will praise the work. Obviously, Peggy's stable life as a mother and substitute Spanish teacher does not conform. One reviewer says "You're not a real artist, this is crap!" and all the other sheep fall into line with the same opinion.

The episode continues with Peggy finding success, but not due to the quality of her work. Someone discovers her, and then creates a phony new back history for her that pleases the artistic community and suddenly she's a hot commodity.

At the end, Peggy abandons this image and prepares to destroy her work. It is at this point that a bunch of typical people (the kind that the artistic community would look down upon as "redneck", "ignorant", "unsophisticated", and "stodgy") come across Peggy and display what the so-called sophisticated artists never did: the ability to think for themselves and form their own opinion about Peggy's art.

I really enjoyed this episode because it showed that community as it actually is instead of how it professes to be. I think most boring "normal" people acknowledge that the artistic community comes across as one of the most rigid and undiverse collectives around. King of the Hill should be praised for taking a chance by poking fun at an industry that's closely related to its own. I bet the writers took a lot of slack for this.

Star Trek: Voyager: Living Witness (1998) Season 4, Episode 23

Excellent Episode...

[10/10 · 13 March 2007]

...unfortunately I can't help feeling a little sad for this copy of the doctor because he never got to see his family return home. Oh well, by this time the Doc should be able to get a mobile emitter without using time travel! On the serious side this is a fascinating episode based upon the dangers of revisionist history. The descendants of one side of a major conflict involving the Voyager crew and another species have managed to fabricate a version of the events that place themselves in the most favorable position. Using historical records and artifacts, this side of the conflict has managed to create a version of history that seems like it could be factual, but was radically off-base. Needless to say, but this consequences of this revisionist history has rippled through their history. These events take place 700 years in the future and are challenged when a copy of the holographic doctor is discovered and is rightfully outraged by all this.

Replace "Voyager" with "United States" and the alien society's historical re-enactments with the movie "Fahrenheit 911" and this episode makes for some interesting commentary on the consequences of propaganda and revisionist history. That's what makes Star Trek great: the stories provide excellent and often timeless commentary on society.

Nanny 911 (2004–2009)

Interesting, but monotonous.

[6/10 · 24 January 2007]

This show is entertaining, but will eventually grow stale. How many times can you watch two stubborn adults who'd rather be friends than parents to their kids get called out on some of the most basic things? The solution to these households usually boil down to one of the following:

1) Say what you mean and mean what you say. In nearly every show the parents consistently make threats but never carry them out. Gee, I wonder why the kids don't listen?

2) The parents don't back each other up. Gee, ya think the kids may learn to exploit that? It cracks me up when it's over something irrelevant too. Dad says "no" to getting a cookie and then Mom says "OK". Even if the Dad was being too strict it's more important for the parents to display solidarity. Obviously, the kid picks up on this weakness and learns how to manipulate the adults.

The most amusing part of the show is when one of the parents break down because Jr. is unhappy. You'll often see a child flying into a tantrum when confronted with one of the Nanny's new rules. This tantrum is often accompanied with some of the phoniest sobbing you've ever heard. Then one of the doormat parents, usually the mother, falls for and surrenders to this blatant display of manipulation. Child 1; Parent 0. The Nanny will then confront the parent and the parent will be all offended by the requests of the Nanny! You might think the Nanny was requesting the parents turn their house into a military boarding school! This would be hysterical if it wasn't so sad. For every 1 of these brats that a Nanny fixes, millions will pour into society.

This is an important show because these kinds of spineless parents are becoming the norm. It seems like whenever I go out I run into a wild brat accompanied with a parent who completely ignores what the kid is doing. It bothers me more to see a parent doing absolutely nothing than it does to see (and hear) a bratty kid running wild in a public place.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

The very definition of "Overrated"

[3/10 · 13 September 2006]

This movie is quite possibly the most overrated movie I've seen since the painfully boring English Patient. First of all, the production quality of the movie seems as bland as the characters. The movie just seems cheap. The only positive about this movie's production values is that it didn't get suckered into the tired trend of using "artistic" wobbly camera work.

The next problem is that the movie's characters are mostly nerds and nerds are, well, boring. Another problem is that Napolean borders on being a mean nerd. I tend to dislike movies where the main characters are just not likable. We were supposed to be sympathetic to the Napolean character, but his personality got close to the point where you just don't care what happens to him. The only character that had any sort of energy was the internet girlfriend of Napolean's brother.

The killer problem with the movie was its almost complete lack of a plot. It's almost laughable that I placed a spoiler warning on this review considering that the movie doesn't have a plot to spoil, but I had to mention what happens at the very end: nothing! Apparently the director ran out of tape and just cut off the movie. This movie probably has one of the most abrupt endings I've ever seen. Here's the plot of the movie: "Napolean bumbles into some equally dysfunctional nerds, his uncle moves in, Napolean says 'Gosh' a few dozen times. He dances. Director sees that the movie reached a length long enough to be considered a movie. The end." I was warned about this and even I was surprised by the lack of story in this movie. Seinfeld this ain't; yea it's a movie about nothing but it has no spark of life.

If I had paid to see this movie I wouldn't quite place it into the category of holding a lifelong grudge against being suckered out of the money (For me that's just a one movie group, The Blair Witch Project. I'm literally still angry over losing 8 dollars to that turd. Those people were laughing all the way to the bank.), but Napolean Dynamite definitely falls into the category of being a hype and marketing driven movie.

Yes, Dear (2000–2006)

Fun show that accomplishes what a sitcom should accomplish: entertain the audience

[9/10 · 3 August 2006]

For some reason this show has a knack for finding those little irrelevant things that personally find funny and uses them on this show. If I have a pet peeve about some bizarre little thing you can be fairly certain that it's been mocked on this show too.

Another thing I like about this show is how it pokes fun at the entire concept of the TV sitcom. For example: 1) Nearly every sitcom has the exact same set. In one episode Greg rearranges the living room so that it's laid out in the way that makes sense: with the couch facing the staircase. He points out why it makes so much sense, but everyone else thinks that "something's just not right".

2) It's common knowledge that sitcoms uses twins to play the role of small children, so why not exploit it? In one episode Jimmy and Christine are convinced that they damaged Kim and Greg's kid and the entire episode revolves around stories of this kid getting hit on the head. During the closing tag scene, Jimmy walks into the kitchen with one of the twins and replaces the kid. That was hysterical.

3) I think every sitcom has had the scene where a pair of characters need to speak in private so they move 5 feet away from a third character and start speaking normally. In TV land sound can apparently only travel about 4 feet. In one episode Greg was complaining to Kim about the difficulty in having Jimmy around, then after the conversation the camera cuts to the kitchen where Jimmy's friend asks "Do they know you can hear them?" and Jimmy says "Yea. They do this all the time".

So what if the critics don't like this show. One of the things I've noticed is that the only critics that seem to have integrity are the ones who review video games. With video games it seems like you can still get an honest review but movies, TV, and music? Forget it! Those reviews are obviously based on whether or not the content complies with one of the reviewer's personal agendas or whether or not the content came along with a nice, ahem, "goodie bag".

Spying on Myself (2006– )

Interesting concept that fails

[27 April 2006]

This is a show that I would really like if it was done well, but due to the poor implementation I just don't like it. Right now I'm deleting the show from my TiVo and decided to give this remaining recorded episode a watch.

The only good thing about the show's implementation is that it doesn't begin a commercial break with extensive previews of the next block, and it doesn't end a commercial break with an extensive recap of what's already happened. This is an obnoxious trait that I see in many reality based shows. The show does begin with an annoying synopsis of the entire show though.

The show's biggest problem is the poor makeup transitions of the spy. Considering the importance of the makeup job and the use of latex prosthetics and other advanced equipment, you'd think that the show would do a much better job in the transformation. Hair seems to be the biggest problem. One guy with a full head of hair was shaved down to look like he was balding on the top. The look was so artificial due to the unnatural abrupt boundary of the hairline that even the producers had the makeup artists revise the look. In another episode a woman was made up to appear like a man. Her clothes were different and her hair short, but she still looks like a woman. True, she's supposed to look like a gay fashion designer but she still looked like the person that she really is. Her fake mustache looked like a piece of black felt taped to her upper lip! Sad... I honestly can't understand why the mark doesn't figure out the spy's identity every week. Usually during the encounter the mark gives some sort of impression that they know something's up, and almost without fail they mention some specifics after the spy's identity is revealed.

If the show continues, I have the following makeup recommendations:

1) Since most of the spies end up with makeup on their entire face, try changing the spy's race. That would change a person's appearance dramatically.

2) When changing hairlines or using fake facial hair make sure the look is realistic.

3) Find a makeup artist that is good with aging individuals and drastically age someone. You could even use big coke-bottle glasses which would have the benefit of changing the look of a person's eyes.

4) Body suits are used to change the shape of a person's chest and abdomen, but why not find a way to change a person's shoulders too? 5) Sometimes the mark sees the spy standing. Try finding ways to modify a person's height through lifts and sole-less shoes, or try placing the spy in a wheelchair to really hide the height.

Metroid: Fusion (2002 Video Game)

Well done sequel

[10 January 2006]

Fusion was an interesting entry in the Metroid series because of its interesting story. Yes, it was short and far more linear than most Metroid games, but since this is just a Gameboy game the duration seemed perfect - especially for me since I bought it to occupy my time on a cross country flight.

But praise is boring, so let's get on with the complaints! First off, I just never liked the Fusion suit. It looks like a blue and yellow wetsuit and not a highly advanced power suit built for fighting. I guess this can be explained because the Fusion suit is just a portion of the power suit, but Samus always has those goofy looking fins in all the artwork. Since this is just a low-res 2D game the player won't really notice this during actual gameplay, but it is unfortunate due to the graphical power of the current and upcoming Nintendo console system. These systems are finally powerful enough to show these suits with a lot of detail, and now Samus no longer wears her awesome looking power suit! Eventually the consoles should advance the storyline beyond Fusion, so it will be a shame to be stuck with this fusion suit in future games. Bring back the Varia suit! Second, the challenge level in this game is fair and sometimes seems too easy but this game has one mini-boss that is an absolute nightmare because of the cheap tactics of that boss. The spider boss can snatch you up and is nearly impossible to avoid. Once grabbed you are completely at its mercy. You cannot free yourself and each grab robs you of a lot of energy. Defeating this boss is mostly a result of pure dumb luck, and if memory serves me right there's not even a place to save your game for a while after the fight. I like challenging boss characters (The Omega Pirate in Prime is a perfect example), but when a boss is cheap it really angers me. This boss is the reason I never play through this game anymore. Fortunately cheap boss characters like this have become largely extinct since the 8bit era.

Aside from those small flaws this is an enjoyable game. Just prepare yourself for possibly minutes or hours of pointless gameplay against the spider boss because there's really no telling how long it could take to get past that cheap point in the game.

Star Trek: Enterprise (2001–2005)

Lots of potential, but the series never got going

[9 January 2006]

Being a prequel, this series had the limitations of fitting into the history defined by hundreds of hours of prior Trek episodes, but as a prequel it had the chance to detail how that history came to be.

For example, one of the biggest problems with this show was that it went off onto major time-draining tangents like big story arcs with the Suliban and the Xindi. Though I liked the Xindi arc, neither event was ever mentioned in "future" Star Trek episodes so these events seemed like a waste of time.

Related to that, we barely got into any Earth-vs-Romulan conflicts. I thought it was great that the sole time the series did encounter Romulans that the writers maintained history by not allowing anyone to see a Romulan. Other Star Trek shows and movies established that this pre-Federation contact was important because it established that Earth couldn't use cloaking technology and it was important for the creation of the Federation itself. Enterprise just skipped out on telling that big tale.

After 4 seasons of this show Earth only built one vessel of the sophistication of the Enterprise. Since this show was supposedly set close to the birth of the Federation, shouldn't Earth have picked up the pace a bit to show that humans should belong in an organization like that? Shouldn't earth have been progressing at a nice clip? Seeing the interaction between these ships and Earth would have been interesting and realistic.

The lack of a Prime Directive was never exploited. No Directive? OK, let's see first hand what's so dangerous about interacting with the internal events of another world. They could have done such an event in one season then revisit that society a season or two later to see how bad Archer and Crew screwed things up. Enterprise never took advantage of that, and in fact when they had a chance Archer actually gave a speech where he said something pompous like "someday rules, a directive, will be written on how to interact with alien species and until that happens I'm going to act like those rules were already written" WTF??? I enjoyed many story arcs. The Humans-Vulcan-Andorian relationship was interesting because it showed that things weren't all peachy and fuzzy between future federation worlds before that organization was created. The Vulcans and their shunning of actions like the mind meld was also interesting. Things like those made me wonder "we know this doesn't last so I wonder how this will eventually play out". Unfortunately these arcs were not well utilized.

Speaking of arcs, Enterprise was riddled with episodes that just didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I know TNG is put on some sort of pedestal by most fans, but I find TV shows where the episodes have little or no continuity between them very dull and certainly doesn't leave me at the end of the show eager for the next episode and the next piece of the story. (DS9 was well done when it came to this) The 3-episode arcs of season 4 were really annoying because the blocks of 3 just stood out so obviously. Often the writing in an episode was very dull and extremely predictable.

Another flaw with the show was how many characters were underutilized. Just like this paragraph.

The final main flaw of the show was that it didn't embrace the danger of early space exploration. After 4 years only 1 major character died and he only died in the final episode. When you never kill major characters in dangerous environments, the viewer never feels that a character is in any real danger and therefore doesn't become as engaged into the story as they could be. After 4 years at least 3 major characters should have been killed! It would have been fun to see the technology fail more often (like the artificial gravity) I once heard that the technology in Star Trek was supposed to be as reliable as what we use today, but our real technology is nowhere near as reliable as what we saw on the set! (I'm surprised this PC hasn't crashed while writing this)

Duet (1987–1989)

This was an odd sitcom

[6 May 2005]

I've never seen a sitcom that did what this show did. It was based around a set of lead characters then introduced a set of supporting characters. The supporting characters got more and more screen time, then by the end of the show the supporting characters became the leads and the leads became the supporting characters.

But the insanity doesn't end there! Most of the cast continued their roles on an entirely new series. Laura, the original lead female who became the supporting lead character, loved professional cooking and was becoming more and more successful in that field. Then suddenly she abandoned her career and made a logical jump into a similar field by becoming a real estate agent! Fortunately this was just in time for the sequel that was based in. ta-dah, a real estate office!

Sorry, but this show was good but it had strange direction.

Three's a Crowd (1984–1985)

Why Janet and Jack wouldn't have worked

[6 May 2005]

I was a big fan of Joyce DeWitt on Three's Company, but a Jack and Janet spin off just wouldn't have worked for several reasons. First of all, over the course of the series the relationship between Jack and the female roommates moved strongly in the direction of a brother-sister relationship instead of the romantic one. To see these pseudo-siblings married might have seemed as out of place as a Brady Bunch spin off called "Greg Loves Marcia".

The second reason it would have failed is that "Three's Company" broke some social TV taboos in its day, so the successor should break some in its own day. Back in the 80s, the controversial trend was to dismiss the concept of marriage with the idea that you didn't need a contract from the government in order to be in a committed loving relationship (yet oddly enough the controversial trend in our current decade is the opposite belief) so having Jack shack up with a woman was the next logical step. Jack living with Janet, however, would not have made sense because both characters had previously expressed value in the concept of marriage and we've already seen them living together for the past 7 years. What would we gain, especially when her parents already like Jack! A third reason it wouldn't have worked is that the entire franchise was based upon the British "Man About the House" franchise. I understand the value in copying the core concept, but I don't know why the producers continued mirroring that franchise. (Legal reasons perhaps?) At any rate, "Three's A Crowd" was designed after "Robin's Nest" and trying to force Janet and her family into those roles would have been awkward. The bitter relationship between the parents of Jack's girlfriend was key to the reason behind their living together and it was also the source of a lot of comedy with the un-Father-in-Law. (It's odd. Vicki wanted this arrangement so that they were living together because they wanted to live together instead of being forced to live together. Apparently splitting up a relationship where two people share the same living environment, property, bills, and possibly kids is only difficult if that couple is married) We already met Janet's parents and they seemed fairly contented with each other... and fairly boring too.

I also think the producers wanted to get lots of fresh blood into the mix. If the female lead was Janet the name of the series might as well have been called "Three's Company Lite". (Though the series "Angel" did show that you can create a new series with a cast comprised completely from a subset of the cast of another show yet still have it feel like its own show) But all my arguments are a moot point considering that the series did fail.

Super Size Me (2004)

Another film for naive collectivists

[1/10 · 30 May 2004]

"Help! Help! The mean old corporations are stuffing me full of food! Save me government! Save me from myself!" - That's the message of this movie so it's sure to be a big hit with the fascist proponents of socialism that run amok at events like Sundance. (No wonder it was such a hit) Will this flick be anything more than a joke to clear thinking individuals? Doubtful!

The events of this movie seem highly suspicious. He claims to have gained 25 pounds in 30 days. To those who are not informed, the human body must have a surplus of 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat. This means he must have had a surplus of over 2900 calories per day. According to the McDonald's website a Big Mac - the universal yardstick of unhealthful food - contains 600 calories. To get that surplus you'd have to eat 4.8 extra Big Macs! Remember this is a SURPLUS, it means you have to eat that in addition to the normal amount of calories you'd have to eat in a day which would likely be somewhere between 2200-2500 for him! This means the guy's daily caloric intake would have to be over 5000 calories a day! The movie doesn't give the impression that his goal was to consume as much food as possible in 30 days. Instead, his goal is show how McDonald's used some sort of mind control to force him to eat what he did. When asked if he wanted it Supersized, he was a victim and had absolutely no power to say no. He wants to show how easily others can fall into this evil corporate trap! I hate to say it, but this seems to be a film on par with a Micheal Moore *ahem* documentary where inconvenient facts are ignored and convenient ones are fabricated on the fly. Gullible people who buy into his conclusion will not care about little details like facts, but anyone with an open mind will probably enjoy the ride like a B horror movie and feel smugly superior to those who actually bought it.

I'll save you a few bucks and explain why Americans have a problem with obesity. Unlike other cultures we have quick access to great tasting cheap food (Kidney Pie? Not here!). The American economy is the most modern in the world meaning we've "outsourced" labor-intense tasks to machines. From cubicles to robotics in factories to remote controls our modern life has reduced the amount of physical work we need to do. Healthful (and far cheaper) foods are still plentiful, but millions do not have the willpower to forsake short term convenience for their long term health, so when combined with a lifestyle that requires less physical output we gain weight.

Duh - not a difficult concept! Those who choose to be fit can still do so, and those who choose short term gratification will become a pile of lard.

BTW, if society ever degenerates to the point where people can successfully sue food corporations for their own dumb choices, will that mean corporations in the fitness industry will be able to sue their customers for their successes? Think about it; if you acquire great health from Gold's Gym shouldn't Gold's have a *right* to some of the wealth you will accumulate because of your improved health? You'll live longer (meaning you can work longer) and you'll need less of that expensive health care! Surely if a corporation can be at fault for making you obese then a corporation can be at fault for making you healthy! If they are going to be financially responsible for obesity then they should gain from "giving" people health! Of course that will never happen because this obesity nonsense if rooted in the anti-capitalist movement. What a shame we have so many ignorant people in this country who only see one of those two situations as absurd.

The O.C. (2003–2007)

Cheesy

[25 August 2003]

I can't get past the laughable commercials "He's just a kid who has no place to goooooo", did anyone else crack a rib laughing at that line? And where is this kid he keeps talking about? I haven't seen a kid yet! There's a troubled male character who looks to be about 35, is that who they are talking about? (I ask sarcastically) What's with the other elderly teenager saying "This is how we do things in Orange County!", how cheesy is that? Place you county's name in that sentence, can you imagine anyone else doing this? I haven't heard teenage dialog that bad since "West Side Story" and it was supposed to sound cheesy because it was a musical! I can't but thinking of Orange County Florida, home to Mickey and Minnie Mouse. I picture them taking in a troubled young rabbit played by 60 year old Bugs Bunny. I then picture the mice, as 2 people in stuffed Disney World suits, and Mickey says while giggling around "He-he-he just a kid with no where to go! Hu hu!" and Minnie then holds her hands to her face in shock. I then picture Donald Duck perparing for a fight saying "This isn't how it's done in Orange County" as Bugs attempts to use some crazy Acme. Cheesy!

The whole concept of the show would make me mad anyway, some decept man and woman are opening their house to a troubled *ahem* "teenager" and it turns out that the "kid" becomes more of a pain in the bullocks than before. And what't the deal with the love interest? Sometimes she looks 40, and sometimes she looks 12! Really strange...

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Who needs facts? It's propaganda!

[1/10 · 8 April 2003]

I watched this movie just to see what all of the fuss was about. I'll be honest, I read the critiques on this film's inaccurate presentation of the facts before I saw the film. If you haven't heard, the facts are so poorly respected in this film that Disney's Pocahontas comes off looking like a History Channel presentation of the situation. What I mean by that is Disney's Pocahontas is a closer representation of the facts of the Columbine incident than Bowling for Columbine! A documentary is supposed to be, well, based on the facts and since it is not I cannot praise this movie. I will say it was put together well, especially the staged scenes where he got a gun at a bank and bullets at a store without having his ID checked. Moore edited together Heston's speech very well, you'd have no idea that the dialogue actually comes from several speeches and that Heston's messages didn't come close to the fabricated one that Moore created. Honestly I don't know why he bothered, intelligent viewers can smell the propaganda on this film within the first minute and can easily find the facts on the event on the net. Narrow-minded individuals will buy the message of this film faster than you can say "John Q"! You gotta wonder about people like Moore: just how closed-minded does one have to be to knowingly hide the truth so that their position looks credible? Why not just be honest?

John Q (2002)

Excellent movie, but soured by Big Brother politics

[1/10 · 28 July 2002]

The only reason Denzel Washinton didn't get Best Actor for this film is because he won for his role in Training Day. The story was also excellent, however the heavy-handed helping of Big Brother politics, largely at the end, leaves the viewer with the sense that they were duped into watching a propaganda film. The movie comes down hard on HMOs and its solution to the problem? A government run HMO where membership is mandatory! (I wonder if membership includes a uniform?) This movie makes you think, but not in the intended direction: If health care is a right and not just a need, isn't Denzel denying thousands their right to health care by taking a huge multimillion dollar salary and spending it all on himself? Did New Line Cinema donate all of the profits on this movie to medical charity or did those involved walk away with hefty salaries and BMWs? "Rights" mean people are guaranteed legal protection to engage in a certain activity, so in a society where welfare is somehow considered a "right", others must actively supply goods and services to fulfill that "right". Therefore, since "40 million people" don't have health care coverage people who spend any money on themselves on luxury items are denying another their right to health care! Unfortunately for New Line and Denzel, this is not the kind of thoughts they wanted people to leave the movie with, but when your film makes hundreds of millions in revenue, who care if your intent goes through?

Twister (I) (1996)

Impressive milestone in 20th century cinema

[3/10 · 15 January 2002]

Gone are the days of "The Wizard of Oz" stealing the spotlight as *THE* film highlighting the impact of Tornados in our society. Helen Hunt and a phenomenal storyline will literally blow away any memory you have of that old picture. Not only is Twister a film with Hollywood's hottest star, Helen Hunt, it also contains a thrilling edge-of-your-seat ride through a plot filled with more twists and turns than a ride through a town with a lot of turns in it. Not only that, the writers managed to create a film which could easily be modified into a National Geographic special due to its strict adherence to solid science yet it manages to do so without becoming cliché. Trust me, you haven't seen a disaster film of this caliber since "Deadly Swarm: Killer Bees".

How packed full of entertainment and science can one film be? First off, you have an amazing romance between Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton. What makes this romance so unexpected is that he arrives on the scene with his new fiance. Why on earth would you expect a romance between the lead male and female characters when one is clearly hitched? As soon as you see the interactions between Bill, Melissa (Jami Gertz), and Jo you'll get it. You'll immediately realize that Melissa is all wrong for Bill and that Jo is actually the one who is the perfect match. You'll soon scream from the edge of your seat that Melissa Reeves is all wrong for Bill and that Jo is his true soul mate, but due to the thrilling tornado hunting adventure one would think that there's just no room for romance, but fortunately one would be wrong. Completely out of the blue, Bill comes to his senses and realizes that Jo is the woman for him and he chucks Melissa out in the middle of Oklahoma.

But is Melissa sad? No, she's wise enough to see that her only purpose of being in the movie was to ask the questions that we the audience need answered about the hard-core science of tornado hunting. She, like the audience, finally realizes that Bill and Jo are meant to be together and as an empowered woman, she has more important things to do than whine about some man who's stupid enough to get sick in a space capsule, yet she made a big sacrifice for us the viewers, and you better appreciate it.

Unfortunately, poor Bill and Jo have more than a spare wheel to interfere with their budding romance: The Tornado Villains! Driving in their black minivans with their cutting edge technology, these nefarious scientists are corporate whores to the Extreme. Armed with their own tornado studying device, shamelessly duplicated from the plans Bill and Jo developed, these miserable excuses for human beings have no soul: while Bill and Jo may have meager technology, their love of science and ability to speak directly to the Earth ensures their victory over the scum that was probably funded by C. Montgomery Burns himself.

Kids should see this film mainly to learn how to handle themselves in a tornado. First off, we should all drive Dodge pickups due to their regenerative properties, Chrysler foolishly fails to advertise the vehicle's ability to fix a broken axle and windshield on the fly in their commercials. (Personally, I would see a vehicle's ability to repair itself as a big selling point but those were the days before 0% financing) The only damage this vehicle will succumb to is the full brute force of an F-5 tornado or a nail.

Kids will also learn that tornados have been stereotyped as destructive machines as we now see that a tornado will only affect with wind speed in the cone. Outside of the tornado the wind is nice and calm giving budding "Wind Speakers" of the midwest the chance to get close and personal with a tornado. And their internal winds certainly aren't fast enough to propel dust and dirt fast enough to act like a sandblaster on human flesh.

We also learn to avoid bovines when tornados are present, unlike their swine counterparts, bovines CAN fly and appear to do so whenever a tornado is present. While their flight appears slow and peaceful, children of the farming-centric "Tornado Alley" know very well that cows have chronic diarrhea and due to the erratic flight paths of flying cows it might be difficult to avoid a bout.

I highly recommend buying Twister for your own home collection, in fact buy several copies for every DVD or VHS player you own. You need to be prepared! My vote: 3 out of 10 stars.

The Wonderful World of Disney: The Facts of Life Reunion (2001) Season 44, Episode 5

Glad to see them again

[20 November 2001]

The Facts of Life Reunion disturbed me because it little uncomfortable knowing that I'm now old enough to begin seeing reunion movies of some of my favorite childhood shows. Aside from that, it was really refreshing seeing the cast again. The main cast really seemed to be enjoying themselves back in their old roles and the old chemistry was still there. The producers did a great job in staying true to events in the series and informing us of the changes in that time, fans will see many, sometimes minor, references to the past (like Mrs. Garrett's Peace Corps journey, Blair's purchase of Eastland and allowing boys to go to the school...etc) which makes it seem like someone behind the scenes cared enough to get the details right. The recreation of the Eastland Cafeteria was excellent and was upgraded from the bland 4-sided look of a TV sitcom set to the full 6-sided realistic looking sets found in hour long dramas. While the writers did a great job in packing a lot into this movie, they didn't really create a good plot. Natalie had 2 dates in one night and attempted to prevent both men from knowing about the other, that's about as sitcom cliche as replacing a friend's dead pet with a look-a-like, but who knows? Maybe a movie based on a sitcom should embrase their sitcom-ness! Some things I hoped for but didn't see: a tour of their old "Edna's Edibles" house, you'd think Beverly Anne might still be living there. I would have loved to have seen an upgraded 6-sided version of that significant set too! The main flaw was the lack of Nancy McKeon, her absense was very noticeable but the writers did a good job in acknowledging her importance by having her kid and husband show instead. McKeon supposedly wanted to put the Jo role behind her and move on, but sorry Nancy, skipping out of a reunion show doesn't help break a typecasting problem it just makes you look like an ungrateful David Caruso who couldn't be bothered with the role that made her famous in the first place. You stood out more by NOT being there. On a side note, the cast of "Facts" kids fortunately had enough smarts to stay away from the problems that plagued the "Diff'rent Strokes" kids. Maybe "Jo's" case involved a troubled Willis Drummond...

Halloweentown II: Kalabar's Revenge (2001 TV Movie)

OK movie

[28 October 2001]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I ran into this movie while waiting to go do something else. After about an hour I got caught up in this silly movie and had to see it through. I can get caught up in a made-for-TV movie for some reason and actually enjoy it but hate a full-blown big name movie with a better plot, I guess it's the lack of an expectation or something. The effects were good, pretty much close to what you'd see in a TV drama with lots of effects. Some of the strange looking people of Halloweentown have makeup good enough to appear in a modern scifi show while others look like they're wearing a cheap big rubber mask. All-in-all, the effects are definately good enough for kids. The plot? OK, not spectacular but alright for a child's movie but the cast really carries this movie, you actually LIKE the characters. SPOILER ALERT: Defeating the villian involves time travel, a plot device which is just asking for plot holes. The main purpose of the movie is to defeat the villian by midnight otherwise the Piper family can't get back home...but if you can travel in time the time constrant is meaningless! If you can travel back in time why bother beating the villian after they've done their evil deed? Why not just go back in time and stop them from doing what they did? I guess I'm thinking to hard over this kiddie movie but it's OK.

Splatter Farm (1987 Video)

Don't be tricked: It was a home movie

[1/10 · 27 September 2001]

You know how people joke about The Blair Witch Project being a dull do-it-yourself home movie? Well, Splatter Farm makes that movie look like Citizen Kane! Yes, I had the misfortune of actually renting this movie years ago and it was so bad it actually has become a running joke with my family. If we see a lousy movie we compare it to this one! Honestly, I can't believe it's even on this website. According to my video store, they get home movies like this every once and a while and sometimes they slip through the cracks and get on the shelf.

Don't be tricked by the other posters who see like they were probably some of the people who were in the movie, this movie had no story, no quality acting, no quality effects: IT WAS A HOME MOVIE.