When this program plays tapes of Mr. Gein's voice, shows actual photos, and tells facts about events, it is an excellent show. Unfortunately, it also offers opinions and conjecture by authors and bloggers presented as facts. They tell tales in details that they cannot possibly know. These are self-proclaimed experts on the events and life of Ed Gein. Mr. Gein was not a celebrity so any details about his life prior to his arrest are not documented. The tropes of an overbearing Christian zealot woman is presented as his mother, but there is no evidence of this being the case. Attempting to demonstrate her zealousness, the show uses stock footage of a person praying a Rosary. She was a Lutheran, and they are a group that absolutely does not pray the Rosary. There simply is not enough known about Ed Gein to present such a program in the detail supposedly offered.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Creep
31 December 2021
Sam Beckett is as much of a creep as the body he leaped into. He was manipulative to an unknowing woman, his only goal was to trick her into falling for him in the future. This one was difficult to watch. I hope this is not going to be the future of the show.
Risky
5 May 2021
Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead
(2015)
Very self serving
20 September 2020
Very white, and very privileged. That describes pretty much everybody involved in this film, and therefore it can be assumed with National Lampoon. The film is somewhat entertaining but extremely self-serving. If you believe all the speakers, anyone involved with National Lampoon was one of the most intelligent, funny, and brilliant people in the world; they were are intellectual geniuses if you believe this film. The writers and creators of National Lampoon believed themselves to be very anti-establishment, and that they were. However, they were just a part of a different establishment. The inside information is somewhat interesting in the early part of the film, however even at 98 minutes it begins to drag on.
The Taking of Deborah Logan
(2014)
Why the "found footage" format?
13 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
What horrible execution of a horrible idea. This film shows no respect for the disease of dementia/Alzheimer's, for those that get the disease, or for their caregivers and families. Why would a PhD student set up cameras all over the house to document events like a found footage film? Why would a hospital allow the filming, not only of consultations and procedures, but in a room as well? And to top it off, why would the fire department and paramedics be called to a hospital? This film does not work on any level.
Dances with Wolves
(1990)
Costner Arrogance
31 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I guess because he was producer, director, and star, Kevin Costner was able to add his mark on virtually every aspect of this film. This fact shows as his arrogance comes through in every camera angle, plot twist, length of the film, and theme. His character is the savior, hero, and even gets the woman, who naturally is the only white woman in the group. Indigenous people are portrayed in a realistic and sympathetic manner, except for their need for the messiah that is Kevin Costner.
Rip off of Angel/Buffy
18 August 2020
Charmed is pushing hard at this point to capitalize on the popularity of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This show is clearly trying to have Cole play the role of the conflicted evil one with a good side in a love affair with a slayer. A big difference is Buffy (the character and the show) had the guts to kill Angel. Of course BTVS had superior plots, writing, directing, and acting.
Vertigo
(1958)
Typical Hitchcock
4 July 2020
Incredible film angles, breathtaking lighting, and shots that would make for an award winning photograph. But also, as was the case with most Alfred Hitchcock films, this is the story of an old man creeping on a much younger woman. No means no, even if you are Jimmy Stewart. Another forced twist in the plot that Hitchcock did in virtually all his work. Besides two or three great films, the stories Hitchcock told prove he was not the genius most believe him to be.
Poor Female Representation
21 October 2019
The story is decent and back to the basics of Star Trek. The series is still at the point of getting to know the characters, so that will probably be the primary focus early in season one. Unfortunately, it is already clear that the representation of women in this series is taking some huge steps back from Star Trek Deep Space Nine and Star Trek Voyager.
After seeing some very strong female characters in the previous two Star Trek series (Captain Janeway, 7 of 9, Torres, Jadzia Dax, Kira, etc.), Enterprise appears ready to go back to the weak female characters (with the possible exception of Uhura) in the original series. Yes, Enterprise does take place prior to the events of the original series, but it is still set in the future and one would hope that female characters would be depicted in a much more positive light.
With all the males being characterized as brave and curious adventure seekers, T'Pol has been limited to being a killjoy. Hoshi is whining and complaining about everything, even the location of her room, is on a space mission in spite of being claustrophobic, and is unsure about her own profession. She is given some confidence but only after the encouragement of male characters. Her screaming upon boarding the alien ship was more appropriate for a teen slasher film then for a Star Trek series.
For its time, the original series had some fairly positive and strong women. The Next Generation took that a step further and Deep Space Nine and Voyager did an excellent job of it. Hopefully, as Enterprise evolves, it will get back on that trend.
After seeing some very strong female characters in the previous two Star Trek series (Captain Janeway, 7 of 9, Torres, Jadzia Dax, Kira, etc.), Enterprise appears ready to go back to the weak female characters (with the possible exception of Uhura) in the original series. Yes, Enterprise does take place prior to the events of the original series, but it is still set in the future and one would hope that female characters would be depicted in a much more positive light.
With all the males being characterized as brave and curious adventure seekers, T'Pol has been limited to being a killjoy. Hoshi is whining and complaining about everything, even the location of her room, is on a space mission in spite of being claustrophobic, and is unsure about her own profession. She is given some confidence but only after the encouragement of male characters. Her screaming upon boarding the alien ship was more appropriate for a teen slasher film then for a Star Trek series.
For its time, the original series had some fairly positive and strong women. The Next Generation took that a step further and Deep Space Nine and Voyager did an excellent job of it. Hopefully, as Enterprise evolves, it will get back on that trend.
Unfortunate and cruel reference
22 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Excellent character development and back to the witty dialogue that was present at the beginning of the season. This episode portrays many of the characters in a very touching manner and shows a deeper view of their personalities. Most of the episode is worthy of at least a nine, if not ten, out of ten star rating. One scene tainted the episode (and to some extent the entire show) so much, it dropped the score to a two.
When George finally gets the chance to talk to the young pet-reaper, he tells her that he died by being struck by a car. This is a clear reference to Rebecca Gayheart (who was removed from the series early in the season).
I understand the concept of dark-comedy and being irreverent in a comedic way, but this reference took it way too far. It was cruel to Ms. Gayheart and the child (and his family) that was killed in the accident. She was already removed from the show (presumably because of the incident), there was no reason to make this rude, cruel, and unnecessary reference.
If you are unaware of the incident, it is documented in Rebecca Gayheart's bio here on IMDB.
When George finally gets the chance to talk to the young pet-reaper, he tells her that he died by being struck by a car. This is a clear reference to Rebecca Gayheart (who was removed from the series early in the season).
I understand the concept of dark-comedy and being irreverent in a comedic way, but this reference took it way too far. It was cruel to Ms. Gayheart and the child (and his family) that was killed in the accident. She was already removed from the show (presumably because of the incident), there was no reason to make this rude, cruel, and unnecessary reference.
If you are unaware of the incident, it is documented in Rebecca Gayheart's bio here on IMDB.
Young Dracula
(2006–2014)
Two different shows with one thing in common
28 December 2018
The first three seasons are a campy and fun family-friendly comedy similar to American TV series' The Munsters and The Addams Family. The show is enjoyable if it is not taken seriously. There are silly plots and odd camera angles.
After a short hiatus, the show returned in season four with a much darker and serious approach. The cast of supporting characters got much more intriguing in the final two seasons. Which approach is better depends on one's personal preference, but both are well done.
One thing all five seasons have in common is the unfortunate sexist approach to female characters, especially Clare Thomas's Ingrid. She is constantly denigrated specifically for being "a girl." This might have started off as a running joke, but it became a primary theme of the show.
After a short hiatus, the show returned in season four with a much darker and serious approach. The cast of supporting characters got much more intriguing in the final two seasons. Which approach is better depends on one's personal preference, but both are well done.
One thing all five seasons have in common is the unfortunate sexist approach to female characters, especially Clare Thomas's Ingrid. She is constantly denigrated specifically for being "a girl." This might have started off as a running joke, but it became a primary theme of the show.
Beasts of the Bible
(2010 TV Movie)
Entertaining, but not scientific
18 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
If you do not take this "documentary" seriously, you might enjoy it. No mysteries are solved; mythological stories are interpreted as actual events that were never intended to be such. Any supposedly scientific investigation that includes cryptozoologists, cannot be taken seriously.
The fact that the serpent, in the Genesis story, may have had legs is the unusual part of the story? How about the fact that the serpent talked? According to this program, the salamander is not a good candidate for the serpent in the Garden of Eden because it was a symbol of Jesus. The Book of Genesis, just like the rest of Hebrew scripture, was written well before the time of Jesus. The story of Adam and Eve is not a Christian story.
It is not just scientists that consider the story of the Garden of Eden as myth, most theologians see it that way as well.
We do not have the original text of the book of Exodus in order to translate it. There simply is no original text from writing that is that old. The magical stories in the book of Exodus are not meant to be historical accounts of what happened, but important faith and moral stories. The true meaning is not in what type of animal that came from Aaron's staff, but in describing the power of YHWH over the Egyptian gods. If the little papyri found in the sand in Egypt were from about 2,000 years ago, as stated in the show, then they were from the time of Jesus, not from the time of Moses.
One of the heads of the cherubim is said to be a griffon vulture not an eagle because it would be symbolic because the Griffon vulture flies higher than any other bird. Unlike the information we have in contemporary times, the people in ancient times did not know which was the highest flying bird.
The fact that the serpent, in the Genesis story, may have had legs is the unusual part of the story? How about the fact that the serpent talked? According to this program, the salamander is not a good candidate for the serpent in the Garden of Eden because it was a symbol of Jesus. The Book of Genesis, just like the rest of Hebrew scripture, was written well before the time of Jesus. The story of Adam and Eve is not a Christian story.
It is not just scientists that consider the story of the Garden of Eden as myth, most theologians see it that way as well.
We do not have the original text of the book of Exodus in order to translate it. There simply is no original text from writing that is that old. The magical stories in the book of Exodus are not meant to be historical accounts of what happened, but important faith and moral stories. The true meaning is not in what type of animal that came from Aaron's staff, but in describing the power of YHWH over the Egyptian gods. If the little papyri found in the sand in Egypt were from about 2,000 years ago, as stated in the show, then they were from the time of Jesus, not from the time of Moses.
One of the heads of the cherubim is said to be a griffon vulture not an eagle because it would be symbolic because the Griffon vulture flies higher than any other bird. Unlike the information we have in contemporary times, the people in ancient times did not know which was the highest flying bird.
Tell Your Friends