I hated this show. Period. Now, I've watched recent episodes and it is gold. Like way better than before. Its actually he shame he took so long to find his groove because I guarantee any former daily show fan frustrated with Noah will likely be satisfied with Seth's first 15min. every night as supplement to Noah's awfulness. Seriously, I understand where ll the bad reviews came from; but, you people really need to give it another look---or, "a closer look" (as is the name of a consistently great political satire piece he does!). Another line to submit review. Another line to submit review.Another line to submit a review. Another line to submit a review. Pretty dumb policy IMDb.
Reviews
5 Reviews
The Daily Show
(1996– )
Trevor Noah's terrible version of the daily show doesn't deserve to inherit all the good reviews and respect of past daily show
6 February 2016
***Attention IMDb admin, current daily show fans, and former daily show fans:
The good ratings and reviews of the daily show are dated and inaccurate now since there is a new host---a host that in mine and many others' opinions has tanked a formerly amazing funny and insightful and informative show.
Trevor Noah shouldn't be getting the benefit of high IMDb ratings for the daily show since it was Stewart and kilborn that most people have given high ratings for in the last two decades, not in the last 5 months since Noah began.Noah would likely only be at 4 or 5 stars with less than 1000 votes, rather than 8 or 9 stars out of 35000 voters.
Doing this is tantamount to reviewing a new bond film well because you liked Connery bond films in the 1960s just because it is the bond franchise. You don't review things purely based on franchise, you base it on the work and people coming next in a newer version of things.
For a better comparison, this is how IMDb differentiates the tonight show from host to host in its various carnations---with Carson, with Leno, and with Fallon are adages for separate pages of "the tonight show'. The tonight show isn't rated and reviewed in general, its generational and person to person as hosts, which is what the daily show should be as well since kilborn, Stewart, and Noah are all different hosts of different generational styles and humour and fans. You don't go to the tonight show with jimmy Fallon page and see reviews dated back to when Carson or Leno were hosting because thats absurd, right? Well, why is Trevor Noah not being treated so special this way, why is he for no reason riding the coattails of fans and respectability he hasn't earned at all. Its false advertising, and false review system, and makes IMDb seem completely useless.
Furthermore, since it is highly unlikely that IMDb would change this--- why it wouldn't i have no clue since its common sense as applied to everything else on the website in terms of franchises being differentiated by newer versions---i think the only measure to counter this would be to recast your votes to downgrade the current daily show, and to remove any reviews made prior to Noah, and to post more recent reviews lambasting him.
There should be honesty and merit and up to date ratings of things, otherwise what is the point of even having this website and people turning to it to get a good measure of what is good or bad? Rigging ratings in favor of someone defeats the whole purpose of the website. It needs to be updated and more accurate, and the different versions need to be on separate pages.
The good ratings and reviews of the daily show are dated and inaccurate now since there is a new host---a host that in mine and many others' opinions has tanked a formerly amazing funny and insightful and informative show.
Trevor Noah shouldn't be getting the benefit of high IMDb ratings for the daily show since it was Stewart and kilborn that most people have given high ratings for in the last two decades, not in the last 5 months since Noah began.Noah would likely only be at 4 or 5 stars with less than 1000 votes, rather than 8 or 9 stars out of 35000 voters.
Doing this is tantamount to reviewing a new bond film well because you liked Connery bond films in the 1960s just because it is the bond franchise. You don't review things purely based on franchise, you base it on the work and people coming next in a newer version of things.
For a better comparison, this is how IMDb differentiates the tonight show from host to host in its various carnations---with Carson, with Leno, and with Fallon are adages for separate pages of "the tonight show'. The tonight show isn't rated and reviewed in general, its generational and person to person as hosts, which is what the daily show should be as well since kilborn, Stewart, and Noah are all different hosts of different generational styles and humour and fans. You don't go to the tonight show with jimmy Fallon page and see reviews dated back to when Carson or Leno were hosting because thats absurd, right? Well, why is Trevor Noah not being treated so special this way, why is he for no reason riding the coattails of fans and respectability he hasn't earned at all. Its false advertising, and false review system, and makes IMDb seem completely useless.
Furthermore, since it is highly unlikely that IMDb would change this--- why it wouldn't i have no clue since its common sense as applied to everything else on the website in terms of franchises being differentiated by newer versions---i think the only measure to counter this would be to recast your votes to downgrade the current daily show, and to remove any reviews made prior to Noah, and to post more recent reviews lambasting him.
There should be honesty and merit and up to date ratings of things, otherwise what is the point of even having this website and people turning to it to get a good measure of what is good or bad? Rigging ratings in favor of someone defeats the whole purpose of the website. It needs to be updated and more accurate, and the different versions need to be on separate pages.
How to Get Away with Murder
(2014–2020)
inexplicably overrated
26 September 2015
This show sucks. Badly. The ensemble is terrible acting. The writing is hacky. And viola davis is good but her emmy win was undeserving when compared to tatiyana maslany in orphan black. Davis is best part of show but they focus on the ensemble of young 90210 students and their dumb dramas. Th he plot and dialogue is cliché. The music anf tone sucks for a crime drama. The whole thing wreaks. Shonda rhimes keeps getting praisr for making garbage just like greys anatomy. Its like reviewers and critics are all dumb flaky fans who know nothing about writing and acting and directing. Like if the bar of reviewing Bieber was all tween girls. Bizarre that all the idiots drown out reason that this sjow sucks. I have no idea how or why it has an 8.2 rating. Reading other reviews it seems clear that most people find it flaky. I think this 8.2 rating is either rigged or being blindly voted by muddle aged women and black people.
The Theory of Everything
(2014)
Theory of Nothing: highly overrated generic tripe
21 December 2014
This is 2014's most overrated film of the year. While Eddie Redmayne is good as Stephen Hawking, it's really just a performance that deceives the viewer and critic. He looks like Hawking. His hair and clothes look like Hawking. He does the 'Hawking' smile and weird thinking stare face and frowns. Yes, he does a believable Hawking. Well done. But it's just a glorified impersonation. There's no actual great acting or stretch of a transformation or method or scenes that Redmayne is tested as an actor nor Hawking's character development. The dialogue and interactions, aside from using actual Hawking quotes from speeches and writings, are awful and boring and redundant and derivative. The whole performance is mild and plain, and the story is weak. The story has generally been done before. There are no significant scenes or moments that go above and beyond anything generic, nor anything for Redmayne to truly bite into to 'perform.' Even the accident and fall portion of the film is mild and never really becomes that emotional at all. Mostly, the film fails miserably in exploring Hawking's internal thoughts, imagination, rituals, and inspirations.
It plays like a T.V. movie. And quite frankly i'm tired of these Hollywood films doing biopics about an ENTIRE life, using montage and generic moments that aren't specific or significant enough. Biopics that are focused on a period on a life is more interesting than trying to do a whole life in two hours. There's no sense of Hawking and his children in his life. Births are fast-tracked, montage child play and smiles. The film gives you an impression of just Jane, his wife, being a vessel for children. There's no sense of Hawkings personal life, interests, time spent, or anything underpinning the vast ideas he develops. We see him on a beach or being pushed in a wheelchair by family as piano plays. The film is devoid of politics or popular culture and changing times of each decade other than clothes as lazy indicators, and the exception of pointing out Penthouse a few times as some recurring wink wink joke to convey Hawking as some sexual guy. This 'sexualized' Hawking happens throughout the film in various ways..."so Stephen, do some things still 'work.'" The movie mostly follows Jane and her torn affair with some choir priest. In fact, Jane is in more scenes and gets more to act on screen than Stephen Hawking (and Redmayne for that matter). The story is more focused on tripe romance and affair rather than Hawking. And even when departing, a montage is set in again. No emotional development is organic. And, perhaps, maybe as brilliant as Hawking is and as tragic as his condition is, maybe he's just a boring guy and not much can be that interesting in terms of a character on film in scenes other than a guy sitting in a wheelchair mumbling and smiling and frowning. The film would've done a better job with Hawking's imagination and space interpreted in shots, as well as the times he was living in and absorbing and watching as opposed to generic renderings of his domestic life (which was still mild and safe compared to the actual reality) and Jane's struggle and perspective. Everything is furthered by cued dramatic music and montage and shots of faces occasionally. By trying to cram in broad strokes in writing the film into a corner with Jane's story, the theory of everything becomes theory of nothing.
It plays like a T.V. movie. And quite frankly i'm tired of these Hollywood films doing biopics about an ENTIRE life, using montage and generic moments that aren't specific or significant enough. Biopics that are focused on a period on a life is more interesting than trying to do a whole life in two hours. There's no sense of Hawking and his children in his life. Births are fast-tracked, montage child play and smiles. The film gives you an impression of just Jane, his wife, being a vessel for children. There's no sense of Hawkings personal life, interests, time spent, or anything underpinning the vast ideas he develops. We see him on a beach or being pushed in a wheelchair by family as piano plays. The film is devoid of politics or popular culture and changing times of each decade other than clothes as lazy indicators, and the exception of pointing out Penthouse a few times as some recurring wink wink joke to convey Hawking as some sexual guy. This 'sexualized' Hawking happens throughout the film in various ways..."so Stephen, do some things still 'work.'" The movie mostly follows Jane and her torn affair with some choir priest. In fact, Jane is in more scenes and gets more to act on screen than Stephen Hawking (and Redmayne for that matter). The story is more focused on tripe romance and affair rather than Hawking. And even when departing, a montage is set in again. No emotional development is organic. And, perhaps, maybe as brilliant as Hawking is and as tragic as his condition is, maybe he's just a boring guy and not much can be that interesting in terms of a character on film in scenes other than a guy sitting in a wheelchair mumbling and smiling and frowning. The film would've done a better job with Hawking's imagination and space interpreted in shots, as well as the times he was living in and absorbing and watching as opposed to generic renderings of his domestic life (which was still mild and safe compared to the actual reality) and Jane's struggle and perspective. Everything is furthered by cued dramatic music and montage and shots of faces occasionally. By trying to cram in broad strokes in writing the film into a corner with Jane's story, the theory of everything becomes theory of nothing.
Marco Polo
(2014–2016)
Good stuff
13 December 2014
Although littered with historical and biographical inaccuracies and exaggerations, Marco Polo has a good quality production and creates an escapist atmosphere of a mythologized past. The acting is average, and the story lines and characters are intriguing. The settings and camera work are great, and rather than solely focusing on Marco Polo the show has many other characters' roles and perspectives. The sense of power struggles is well laid out, although not even close to Game of Thrones level in scope (obviously).
In terms of any comparisons and/ or contrasts of other historical-epic type t.v. shows, I would say those that enjoyed the shows Rome, Spartacus, Vikings, and Shogun would enjoy this show. This show isn't quite as good as those particular shows, but is better than shows like Black Sails, Davinci's Demons, and The Tudors.
Considering it's Netflix first venture into historical-epic/ fantasy type genre, it's really good quality and more signs of great original content on the Netflix horizon.
All in all, I give it an 8.
In terms of any comparisons and/ or contrasts of other historical-epic type t.v. shows, I would say those that enjoyed the shows Rome, Spartacus, Vikings, and Shogun would enjoy this show. This show isn't quite as good as those particular shows, but is better than shows like Black Sails, Davinci's Demons, and The Tudors.
Considering it's Netflix first venture into historical-epic/ fantasy type genre, it's really good quality and more signs of great original content on the Netflix horizon.
All in all, I give it an 8.
Tell Your Friends