jp7570 Reviews

Star Trek: Discovery: Labyrinths (2024) Season 5, Episode 8

Two things that stood out that do not make sense

[1/10 · 19 May 2024]

OK, so if the Archive is supposed to safeguard the knowledge of practically the entire universe, why all the books? Books can't be THAT uniform across untold number of different species. That was a lazy design choice by the production team so the audience would look at the set and say "Hey look, a library!".

The other ridiculous thing was when Burnham is supposed be leaving a trail in her "mind-labyrinth", she's using a bucket of what appears to be sand to mark a trail. Except that bucket seems to be bottomless, with an infinite supply of sand (or whatever). Really?!? If the labyrinth is only in her mind, why not just levitate above it to see the way out? Its just as logical as that bottomless bucket of sand.

This show, in its final season and last few episodes, continues to insult the intelligence of the viewers with bad writing and poorly-constructed plots and characters. ST:D has zero chance of redemption at this point.

Star Trek: Discovery (2017–2024)

Reliance on unnecessary tech makes the future unbelievable

[1/10 · 10 May 2024]

I get that this is a science FICTION show. But Star Trek - in all its forms - has been rooted in some logic (sorry, Mr. Spock). But ST:D (a terrible abbreviation) sometimes makes absolutely no sense.

Starting in Season 4 when encountering the Federation HQ, there were some design choices that were, well for lack of a better term, just moronic. The first were the chairs that floated, with no attached base on the floor. That is a ridiculous waste of energy and tech, regardless of its source. Just showing this CGI "because you can" is bad story-telling. The same goes for that Federation HQ floor that magically forms around your feet as you walk. Again, this made absolutely no sense and made the rest of the "future" unbelievable. Fortunately, those two design choices seem to have disappeared in the final season (so far).

The writers invention of "retinal tricorders" seemed weird, when all they had to do is camouflage their do-it-all badges. (What, those don't have cloaking?)

But the most annoying thing is the use of the personal transporter to move within the ship between even short distances - like between the bridge and the ready room. It's also a ridiculous habit instead of, you know, WALKING. In an emergency, maybe this makes sense, but for just moving a few hundred feet? Poor writing.

In fact, the complete loss of the transporter chief removed a favorite Trek device, where either the system was down or couldn't work because of interference. Now, you just flit wherever you need.

It's sloppy writing like this that make the end of ST:D more of a relief than a cause for sorrow. Do better next time, Star Trek.

Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV (2024)

One truly upsetting revelation, and some minor issues

[7/10 · 23 April 2024]

After watching all episodes of this documentary, I came away with two basic reactions. The first was shock that 3 pedophiles were caught working at Nickelodeon, on the same set. And one was convicted of doing horrible things to a minor child star. That discovery alone warranted a 2-hour or so documentary. And the fact that the most egregious pedophile turned around and got a job at Disney after his sentence was beyond concerning. That really was the story here.

The second reaction was that the remainder of the documentary seemed to be looking for issues where there weren't really any. It looked through a 2024 "sensibility lens" at shows produced as much as 25 years ago. Was Schneider a toxic, misogynistic jerk? Yeah probably, but it's highly likely he wasn't alone in Hollywood (this was going on years before Harvey Weinstein was caught). Adults looking back on their child star experience may think it was racist or pornographic now, but the evidence just wasn't presented. Does goo on the face mean it's porno? Look at most kid's shows (even going back to Soupy Sales) and getting creamed in the face was "normal" and considered funny back then. It may seem cringe-worthy today, but we are looking at this differently now.

Were little girls overtly sexualized by producers? Perhaps, but critics have been saying that since Annette Funicello appeared on the original Mickey Mouse Club. Again, our current sensibilities have colored the way we look at things done decades ago.

And did child stars have trouble adjusting to post-child roles? Absolutely. But that is nothing new. You can go as far back as the Little Rascals or Shirley Temple - sometimes when kid stars grow up, their careers disappear. And for every Amanda Bynes or Lindsay Lohan meltdown, there were numerous previous examples such as Dana Plato.

The kid-star machine is (and has been) pretty hard on children. A few survive and go on to successful adult careers (such as Jodie Foster, as one example). But there are many more that become "has beens" when they hit puberty. You can't really blame Schneider or Nickelodeon for that.

In the end, the documentary was long on sensationalism, with a few genuinely sad revelations. But the "cultural" reporter (or whatever she called herself) lacked journalistic credibility. I'd rather see a more credible group like 60 Minutes do a deep dive into this world, with more tangible results.

Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt? (2014)

You know how you can't look away from an bad accident? That's this.

[1/10 · 30 January 2024]

I've watched not only Part III, but also Parts I and II of this ill-conceived trilogy. Amazingly, Part III lowered a bar I didn't think was possible - it was worse than Parts I and II combined. Bad acting, poor effects (what few there are) and an unbelievably heavy-handed one-sided plot. One of the end credits mentions that the film was made with the Ayn Rand foundation's permission but not with their participation.

Let's start with the cast. Each film - I, II and III - has a completely different cast in the same roles. There isn't one actor that carries over from one film to the next. So characters inexplicably look different, are of different ages, different body types, etc. (oil magnate is Ellis Wyatt husky in one and rail-thin in another). For Part III, the cast is composed of mostly unknowns, with a few recognizable character actors in supporting roles such as Stephen Tobolowsky (Ned from "Groundhog Day"). Cameos include Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, and Sean Hannity, but I don't think they were really acting.

Hank Rearden is the lead male romantic lead in Parts I and II. But in Part III he is barely seen and is only heard on a phone call - his character simply vanishes despite the fact that he was previously a major plot point. And speaking of disappearing, the lead female role disappears for over a month and is presumed dead, only to resurface with absolutely no explanation, which all the characters seem to accept without question. And a torture scene with John Galt has him restrained to resemble a crucifixion pose. Wow, what subtlety by the director! Even the soundtrack is overly climactic and corny.

The John Galt character is revealed in Part III but is heavily referenced in Parts I and II. Finally in Part III, someone decides to search the employee database at the railroad and voila - there he is, along with his address. Really?!? No one thought of that before?? Amazing.

You can argue the pros and cons of Rand's book, but the way it is presented is absolutely one-sided. Conservatives and libertarians may enjoy it, independents and progressives will find it laughable. No wonder Rand's foundation chose not to participate.

One last red flag. Since the film was given an anemic budget - roughly 25% of Part I's budget, which was less than many television shows - the producers turned to Kickstarter to raise a portion of the production budget. That's NEVER a good sign.

Having said all this, there is a case to be made to produce a better version of Rand's book, maybe as a limited series by one of the streaming services. But in its current form, Part III (as well as Parts I and II) differ very little than the typical "dystopian future" sci-fi films, except with a very heavy-handed political message. Ayn Rand would not approve.

Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012)

A continued mess from Part 1

[1/10 · 29 January 2024]

Whether or not you support Ayn Rand's philosophy, this adaption of Atlas Shrugged is a one-sided and heavy-handed production, with generally poor acting and production values. For some reason, the film was totally re-cast from Part I so there is zero continuity of characters.

The film was shot over a short schulte (about 4 weeks) for a minuscule budget of $10 million and it shows it. Special effects are laughably bad.

Much like Part I, Part II is filled with recognizable supporting actors from old television shows (Family Ties, CSI: Miami, Drew Carey Show, Ellen, etc.). Heck, even Biff (Tom Wilson) from the "Back to the Future" trilogy has a bit part.

Part II extends the simplistic idea that "Capitalism is bad/Government regulation is good". Many "dramatic" scenes take place in board rooms, court rooms, and offices. But the new cast (like the Part I cast) are simply not believable or relatable.

Again, the film fails to provide a prologue to explain the "Who is John Galt" catchphrase that is used throughout the movie. The director shouldn't have assumed that everyone had read Ayn Rand's book.

In the end, Part II suffers from the same issues that plagued Part I as one of the worst reviewed films when it was released. It doesn't help that Part II ends on a cliffhanger, since the poor performance both did not guarantee a trilogy. (Yes, there was a Part III, but it had an even smaller budget.)

It doesn't matter if you lean politically right or left. This film does not do justice to Rand's book. It is oversimplified and poorly produced. And it assumes that audiences could not accept a plot with a more nuanced approach. I hope someone at one of the streaming services takes a better shot at this and does the original source material justice.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)

Heavy-handed and poorly produced

[1/10 · 29 January 2024]

Regardless of whether or not you support Ayn Rand's philosophy, this adaption of Atlas Shrugged is a one-sided and heavy-handed production, with generally poor acting and production values. This film (and its two sequels) promote the simple idea of "Capitalism bad/Government regulation good", when its just not that simple. Regardless, this first film is filled with some actors you may recognize from supporting roles, but who are generally not capable of leading a film. There are some recognizable faces, such as Michael Lerner who delivered a much better performance in "The Hudsucker Proxy". But the leads - both "hero" and villain" - are hard to identify with, and who have very few redeeming qualities.

The film takes place in a dystopian future, but really its more of an alternate reality. There are some recognizable names present - Dell computer monitors, Toyota Camrys, etc. - and apparently cell phone exist, but no real mention of the internet. Odd.

The film suffers from necessary prologue to explain the "Who is John Galt" catchphrase that everyone seems to use. Readers of the book will know, of course, but that doesn't mean everyone will get it.

The film suffers from it's meager budget ($20 million), which was further reduced in the follow-up sequels. And the special effects are less than special.

Overall, this views more like a television miniseries - perhaps what it was originally intended to be. But now in the age of streaming, someone could do a much better job. Views on capitalism vs. Government regulation could be more nuanced, rather than the very heavy-handed approach this film takes. A poor attempt to bring a popular book to the screen.

After Midnight (2024– )

Bring back Craig Ferguson

[1/10 · 19 January 2024]

I watched the premiere episode of this new replacement for the slot after The Late Show and, in my opinion, it was a total failure. (A pseudo-"game show" with made up points? That was more successfully done with "Whose Line Is It Anyway?") The lines in After Midnight all seemed scripted. Any sense of genuine laughter or surprise seemed forced and rehearsed. And while Taylor Tomlinson may be a gifted stand-up, here she just seems so "plastic" and fake. I don't buy her at all the way she plays the host.

Last, at one hour long, this show DRAGS, which is deadly for a so-called comedy show. If After Midnight continues eons its early episodes, it definitely needs to be trimmed down to 30 minutes.

After Midnight may have looked good on paper, but it is a disaster on screen. Not worth watching. Just bring back Craig Ferguson and give him his old gig again.

Time Bomb Y2K (2023)

This could have been an interesting documentary, but. . . .

[2/10 · 4 January 2024]

This could have been an interesting documentary, but unfortunately it is poorly edited and written. At almost 90 minutes, it is WAY too long and could have covered the same ground in 1 hour (or less). It committed the worst sin for a documentary - it was boring.

The documentary contains no new narration, instead relying on many sources for clips and interviews - from network broadcasts to home videos and more. It attempts to track the growing concern of the Y2K bug that is forecast to impact all computer systems on New Year's Day 2000. Why? Because early programmers, in an attempt to save "space" in coding, only coded the year with 2 digits. So 1990 was simply "90" and so on. It was feared that this Y2K bug would paralyze all computers worldwide on New Year's 2000, since they would not recognize the year and would mistakenly reset to 1900. Planes would fall from the sky, nuclear missiles would accidentally launch, the power grid would fail, etc. But when New Year's Day 2000 came, nothing happened.

Many people (myself included) lived those days leading up to Y2K. As a consultant in the late 1990s, I was responding to proposals that required firms to provide proof of Y2K compatibility (real proof didn't really exist). The film mostly documents the fear-mongering leading up to Y2K. That included hoarding supplies, increased gun sales, learning to live off the land, etc. But most people I knew, while they were mildly concerned about it, didn't take the change over to 2000 as a serious problem. Some banks recommended having some cash on hand in case ATM's temporarily stopped working (which they didn't). Other than that, it was a non-event. A joke.

So after more than an hour-long build-up, New Year's Day 2000 comes along and nothing happens. The Y2K bug goes away with no real explanation. A few of the people warning about the "end of the world" (and making money off that fear) simply said "well, we did a good job preparing the computer systems for Y2K." But was it even a problem to begin with? I recall when New Year's Day 2000 happened, nothing unusual happened to my home computer, and I didn't do anything extra to make sure it was "Y2K compliant".

No, the Y2K fear mongering turned out to be one of the biggest frauds in modern times. Yet, this film pretty much glosses over it. Yet, that could have been a major part of the story.

Now the core material is there to be properly re-edited and narrated to make this a more informative piece and entertaining. But as presented, it resembles a poor production by a second-year film student.

Blue Beetle (2023)

Formulaic with very few characters to care about

[1/10 · 4 December 2023]

First, you've probably seen many aspects of this movie before in other films. Take your pick - Iron Man, Spider-Man, Green Lantern, Ant-Man, the list goes on. Suffice to say, there's very little here that's new and fresh.

Second, there are some genuinely annoying characters that detract from the film. While I don't mind George Lopez in his various TV shows, he was horribly miscast here - and his role makes absolutely no sense. So too was Susan Sarandon, who was cast as the villain. She just couldn't pull it off and I didn't believe her in the role. The only redeeming family member, in my opinion, was the grandmother. She was a surprise (in a good way).

Third, the plot was a mess. While trying to be an origin story, it was also a heavy-handed family movie - sort of like the Shazam sequel. And the story was surprisingly boring for a superhero film. If this is the sort of "quality" we can expect from the "new" DC, Warner's is in deep trouble.

5-25-77 (2008)

Not what I thought or hoped it would be

[5/10 · 11 September 2023]

I was in the audience that day in May 1977 to see the opening of the first Star Wars film. I remember the build-up to it in the press, and the well-deserved hype afterwards. This film chronicles a young filmmaker's love of the craft and eventual entry into the industry - ignited by his viewing of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

You might not have heard of Patrick Read Johnson before this film, which unfortunately is a self-indulgent puff-piece by a director with anaverage career. And while Johnson is no Spielberg, in this film he supposedly meets a young Spielberg, the latter being depicted as an annoying know-it-all.

As a director, Johnson ***should*** be aware of the importance of editing. Sure, this film took a long time to make, but Johnson is not objective enough to tightly edit his own story. At a little over 2 hours, the film really drags in the last hour. This could have been 90 minutes (tops) and still conveyed the same story and message.

Of course, there are few directors with enough fame (or vanity) to make their own biographical films. Spielberg did it in 2022 with The Fablemans, and Neil Simon and Philip Roth did it as writers (not as directors). Woody Allen does cherry-pick biographical bits to put in his films, but not a complete life story. Really, there just are not that many directors who do this - not Martin Scorsese, not John Huston, not Richard Donner, not Christopher Nolan, not Quentin Tarantino, etc. The list goes on and you can kind of see why.

First, a personal story like this does not always have wide audience appeal. Second, it may come off as a self-indulgent and vain. And third, if you aren't a household name (and sorry, Patrick Read Johnson just isn't), chances are the box office potential will be very low.

In the end, 5-25-77 isn't offensive but it does commit two cardinal sins - it is not memorable, and it is boring in parts. While some liked it, I'm glad I watched it at home and didn't pay for a ticket. I was close to Johnson's age and went through many of the same things he tried to depict in his film. But there are better and more well-known coming-of-age films already out there. His film just doesn't rise to that level. Sorry, Pat.

Telemarketers (2023)

Interesting subject, but loses steam by the third episode

[5/10 · 29 August 2023]

At its core, "Telemarketers" confirms what we already know - that third-party telemarketing is a scam, especially when done in the name of a charity for injured or fallen first-responders. The fact that little or no money actually finds its way these first-responders is not the headline.

"Telemarketers" spends the better part of its 3-hour run-time showing how sleazy the telemarketing callers are, how sleazy their companies are, and sadly how sleazy many of the police/fire organizations are that hire them. The core characters are reformed telemarketers trying to expose the industry (the leading guy could be played by Bobby Moynihan from SNL), but nothing really gets done at the end. Even the one Senator they meet with seems disinterested - and perhaps is already influenced by these organizations judging by the many framed badges of police organizations in his conference room.

Overall, there was a LOT of fluff and unnecessary material in order to stretch this out to 3 one-hour episodes. In reality, a single 90-minute documentary would have sufficed. And at the end of the final episode, there is no resolution, no hope of passing new legislation to prevent these scam callers, and very few people willing to talk to the amateur journalists conducting the interviews.

This started out with a lot of promise, but it just could not maintain its own momentum and it reaches no conclusion or resolution. So the next time you get a call from someone that says they represent a charity for fallen or injured first-responders, the best thing you can do is hang up. Because there is no hope on the horizon that anything will ever be done to stop this.

The Flash (I) (2023)

Better than the haters said, but still with some issues

[8/10 · 27 August 2023]

Having just seen The Flash on HBO (or Max or whatever they are now), I was pleasantly surprised. There is a lot to like about this version, especially if you suffered through the last couple of years of the TV version.

While I didn't find the effects as "annoying" as others have, it is a generally loud and busy film, with lots of explosions and fights. The Flash's suit is different than the version in the Justice League, with little explanation except for some reference to what Bruce Wayne did (in the TV series, Wayne was nowhere to be found - all the tech came from STAR Labs). The new Flash suit apparently has a built-in cell phone on the sleeve (don't tell Apple), and apparently a "gas gauge" that indicates how much energy Barry has. What?!? That was NEVER in the comic or any previous version, but this Flash apparently has to eat or lose energy (and presumably, speed). That seemed weird.

On the positive side was Michael Keaton once again as Batman. Even Affleck and Clooney seemed to enjoy returning to the role. Too bad Bale couldn't be there.

On the other hand the casting of Iris West was completely unconvincing. The actress has zero chemistry with Ezra Miller and seems sort of "ordinary" (again, in the comics on TV, Iris is a stunner). Not sure what the producers were going for here.

While Ezr Miller has had his share of really bad off-screen press due to extremely bad behavior, it was nevertheless brave of Warners to cast him in a dual role, playing against himself. To be fair, he did this well, playing "older" Barry with maturity and a more serious tone. (The Flash is often portrayed as the clown of the Justice League, so it was refreshing to see this side of the character.)

Maybe I missed it, but the Flash never resolves the Zod issue yet somehow returns to his own timeline basically intact (except for Clooney). That needs further explanation. And clocking in at over 2.5 hours, the film could have used some tighter editing.

Likely, this is the only version of the Flash we'll see, since DC is under new leadership. New movies are planned, but frankly I don't know how many more reinterpretations of well-known DC characters we need - there are too many Batmen now, we'll be getting yet another Superman, and new versions of Green Lantern, and probably Wonder Woman and, yes, another Flash. So if those films don't live up to their expectations, it may be because the studio has forgotten how to build a franchise. Instead, we'll just put them in "their own universes". Lame.

Too bad, because I would have liked to have seen this version of the Flash at least as a trilogy. Miller showed some promise, but doubtful he'll be back. Regardless, The Flash is an enjoyable superhero film as is, warts and all.

Lucy (I) (2014)

Follows Lucky Besson's standard playbook

[5/10 · 6 July 2023]

In many ways, "Lucy" follows a similar playbook that Luc Besson films has. It involves a woman with extraordinary abilities overcoming adversaries (often armed men) in extraordinary circumstances. This has been his favorite plot device in "The Fifth Element", "Nikita" & "Point of No Return", "Anna", "Valerian", etc. Switch genders in "The Transporter" franchise and you have the same basic movie.

Not sure if this is due to some deep-seated fascination that Besson has with his female characters, but the formula wears thin very quickly. It also becomes predictable and somewhat boring - not things you want in an action movie. Would love to see Besson permanently abandon this fascination and become a more well-rounded film-maker.

So "Lucy" gets 5 out of 10 for being derivative and repetitive.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow (2023) Season 2, Episode 3

Nice, but with some caveats

[9/10 · 2 July 2023]

I guess all Star Trek series are required to have a time travel episode. That seems to be a standard across all ST versions. In a way, these always seem to be a way to save some money - you can use existing locations and outdoor shots instead of building sets or even adding too many effects.

I'm not knocking this episode too much. But it was the second one this season to minimize Pike's role to a mere few minutes, relying instead on the stories of the supporting cast. Chong showed more emotional rage than she usually does, which was welcomed. Although parts of it felt like an 80's rom-com with her and the young Kirk starting to fall for each other. And the crying at the end felt a bit out of character.

This episode felt like a breather - no real connection to anything else in this Trek's universe. It was almost a "palette cleanser" before getting back to episodes that feature more of the crew.

8 out of 10 for relying on old time-travel cliches.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: The Broken Circle (2023) Season 2, Episode 1

Glad the show is back but what's up with Carol Kane??

[8/10 · 20 June 2023]

The first season of Strange New Worlds promised to give us the closest representation of the original series - where each episode could more or less stand on its own. Yet, here in the first episode of Season 2, it looks like there may be a season-long arc with the Gorn. Maybe it's just a tease, so we'll have to see how it plays out.

But what is up with Carol Kane's accent?? It sounds like she is re-visiting her Simka Gravas role from "Taxi". Or is that really the only accent she can do? In many ways, she is really difficult to understand with this accent, which is NOT something that is necessary for this role. And she's also a new long-living alien race we've never heard of before?? Why not just make her the same alien race as "Guinan" was? Some very annoying creative decisions so far.

The Idol: Pop Tarts & Rat Tales (2023) Season 1, Episode 1

Unintentional comedy with no likable characters

[1/10 · 5 June 2023]

Right out of the gate, "The Idol" displays its shallowness. It seems like Levinson decided to take "Euphoria" and put it in a music industry setting, while simultaneously making every character completely vapid and unlikeable. There is literally no one to root for. The result is a series of scenes that are unintentionally funny, especially if you are in any way associated with the entertainment industry. Almost a "Dr. Strangelove" approach, but not as clever and without good acting.

Neither Lily-Rose Depp or The Weeknd display anything resembling real acting, or even how to be themselves. (For me, the fact that the star is Johnny Depp's daughter made me want to watch this even less.) Hank Azaria's character Chaim has some weird accent for some reason, and the list goes on from there.

Based on the first episode, I have little desire to follow any of these characters for the rest of the season. "The Idol" commits the unforgivable crimes of being both boring and employing cliched characters in the hopes it will create "magic". It didn't.

The Flash: A New World, Part 4: Finale (2023) Season 9, Episode 13

What started with such hope ends with a whimper

[1/10 · 26 May 2023]

After watching every episode of the full run of The Flash, it appeared to follow the standard Berlanti playbook - start out strong then slowly fizzle out. So where to begin with this final show?

For one, the plotting and pacing of the final 2 episodes seemed way off. There could have been much more action and suspense if the Flash had to face off with the top 5 villains from his past over 2 episodes. Instead, this is saved for the final episode, and really just the first 15 minutes or so. And it was astonishing to see just how easily the team defeated all of these previously-"major" villains.

Second, the design of the Cobalt Blue suit was truly amateurish. It looked like it came off the shelf from a variety of other costumes. And this character can run at fantastic speeds with no mask or helmet, and his hair stays in place? That's just lazy production.

Third, the Flash was able to take down the "ultimate" Negative Speed Force villain by just talking to him. That anti-climax shouldn't be all that surprising, since the show has been leaning towards being more about talking than action over the last few years. This wasn't a superhero show - it might as well have been Cobalt Blue sitting on Oprah's couch! What should have been an epic battle ended in a handshake - an immense let down for a 9 season run.

On the plus side, it was nice to see Tom Cavanagh again, in a couple of different iterations this time, but his screen time was limited. But Carlos Valdes (Cisco) never did make it back due to scheduling conflicts. (Gee, you think with video conferencing that they could have found a way to squeeze him in somehow, but I suppose that was just his diplomatic way of saying he wasn't interested.)

The show ends with the Flash somehow empowering 3 other people around the country (or world) with speed force powers. (When did he learn he could do that?) While some might see that as a set-up for a spin-off, it's not likely, since the CW's new parent (Nexstar) has already indicated their desire for fewer scripted shows going forward. (And don't count on a spin-off on Max - formerly HBOMax - even though DC is owned by their parent company WBD. WBD is looking to reboot the entire DC universe from scratch and there's no indication that the TV Flash would have a place there, other than maybe in reruns on the streamer.)

So after 184 episodes The Flash is over. Fans suffered through several years of withering quality and it was really too late to redeem the series. Thanks for a couple of good years early on. But the overall rating for this episode - and for the final season in general - is 1 out of 10.

Bama Rush (2023)

Unfocused, with no real message

[2/10 · 25 May 2023]

BamaRush starts out by following a group of girls from around the country beginning their journey at the University of Alabama (UA), some from the moment they receive their acceptance letter. It follows the girls as they decide to begin the process of pledging to sororities. But the documentary is hamstrung by a significant hurdle - they can't film anything inside any sorority house, largely because there has been a rumor that "someone" was making a documentary about sororities, so the director was basically shut out.

BamaRush makes some minor revelations. One, the completely out-of-whack price tag it costs each girl to pledge. Second, that the UA student government association (called "The Machine") is a very powerful and secretive organization - a UA version of Skull & Bones, if you will.

Another detail was the sort of "mini-industry" in the form of pledge consultants - women who coach girls to successfully land the sorority of their choice. There was no discussion of what these consultants charge for their services, but I imagine it is fairly pricey. Beyond that, BamaRush offered nothing particularly new or revelatory.

The group of girls in BamaRush range from sincere to relatively shallow, from white to Black, and not everyone gets what they want. But overall, the lack of access hurts the documentary and it reaches no real conclusion.

A huge problem with BamaRush is the very strange pivot it takes about 2/3 the way through, when the director (Rachel Fleit) literally turns the camera on herself. She changes the story to focus on her battle with alopecia (hair loss). She tries to make the awkward comparison between what sorority acceptance and her past experience because she couldn't be her "authentic self" and had to hide her baldness with a wig. What?!? That comes completely out of left field!

In my opinion, a good documentarian does not make themselves the focus of the film, yet that is exactly what Ms. Fleit has done. There was probably a much more personal and compelling documentary that could have been made that addressed alopecia - a film in which she could have commented the struggles of others and maybe herself at the very end. But to put herself front and center in a documentary when her story has NOTHING to do with pledging a sorority, well that's just wrong.

At the end of BamaRush, you learn little new about the system, and more than you were expecting to learn about the director. A poorly structured and poorly directed effort.

The Flash: A New World, Part 3: Changes (2023) Season 9, Episode 12

The "next to last" was really bad

[1/10 · 19 May 2023]

I was hoping that somehow the final two episodes might redeem a series that has been going downhill for the past few seasons. But this next to last episode gives no reason for hope.

It is curious that the producers decided to make an early season minor character (Eddie Thawne) as the main villain in the final arc. Sure, the Thawne lineage has been a constant issue, but it was the Harrison Wells version that was the consistent thorn in the Flash's side.

As for some basic gripes, what is it with the glowing eyes? This has been a constant device across multiple Berlanti-run shows (shows like Titans and Supergirl). Can't the effects team think of something - anything - else to show that a character has gone bad or has otherwise been affected in some way? This has been overused to the point of being laughable.

Second, are we seriously supposed to believe that Chester, Allegra and Cecile in 2049 have not aged one single day? That's 26 years without any signs of aging at all. (And it cannot be due to meta-abilities because Chester is not a meta.) No, it is just another example of poor producing or just being cheap and trying to save money.

Third, the writing in this episode was awful and amateurish. Here is maybe the worst offender from Barry: "You sacrificed your life to save me. I never thanked you." What?!? How exactly do you thank someone that sacrificed their life for you? If this was a high school writing class, that line would earn a D at best.

The one redeeming part of this episode was that we finally got to see some Flash-y action, but it was very late in the episode. In fact, Grant Gustin seems to have had the least amount of screen time in these final episodes.

So here we are starting down maw of the coming final episode. Will it end with a bang, a whimper, or just limp off into the sunset. Will the final episode bring back Harrison Wells (in whatever iteration) or Cisco, or will they appear only in uncredited archive footage? Stay tuned. Or maybe don't, because the show has been a magnificent disappointment.

Night Court: The Honorable Dan Fielding: Part 2 (2023) Season 1, Episode 16

An uninspired reboot and finale

[1/10 · 15 May 2023]

Full disclosure - I watched every episode of the original "Night Court" when it was new. And it is true that the original show went through some growing pains with several cast changes (including public defenders) and lost more than its share of core cast members. But it quickly found its rhythm, thanks in no small part to Harry Anderson, John Larroquette, and Richard Moll - the original "souls" of the show. Not so for the reboot.

Of course, most everyone knows that Melissa Rauch made her name on "The Big Bang Theory" as an ensemble player, but here she fails to have enough to carry the show as the lead. She has said that the "Night Court" reboot was her passion project, so it is improbable that Rauch would re-cast her own role - but she just doesn't carry the show like Harry Anderson did. She just doesn't have Anderson's charisma. While both Judges Stone cared about the people they saw in court, Anderson had an indefinable quality. Was it his love of magic? His love of Mel Torme? His impish sense of humor? It didn't matter - we all thought if we ever had to face a judge we hoped he or she would embody the qualities exhibited by Anderson's Judge Stone.

This "Night Court" has not given Judge Abby Stone much of a back-story to work with. Rauch plays her as a one-dimensional character, and I'm sorry, but her height (just under 5 feet according to IMDB), makes framing shots with her and other cast members, such as with the 6' 4" Larroquette, challenging at best, which can be distracting.

Much of the rest of the cast is not helping. There is the forgettable India de Beaufort (as Olivia) and the completely annoying one-named Lacretta (as the unfortunately named "Gurgs"). These two bring absolutely nothing to the reboot. Kapil Talwalkar (as Neil) seems ok, but we aren't made to really care much about his character. Even the inclusion of Pete Holmes (as Rand, the boyfriend) for a few episodes was a wasted opportunity and he was obviously written off the show in this season finale when he and Abby break up.

Which brings us back to John Larroquette, who remains the single shining light on this reboot. It was a coup to get him to reprise the Dan Fielding role. Of course nearly 40 years later, broadcast television would never tolerate a misogynistic womanizer like Dan Fielding had been, so the character has matured, making him wiser and more empathetic (now a widower who hasn't quite gotten over the loss of his wife). But for some reason, the reboot switches his role from prosecutor to public defender, which he eventually learns to embrace.

Larroquette's timing, presence, and acting ability were the ONLY reasons to watch the reboot. And in this episode, his character leaves NYC to accept a judicial position in Louisiana (a role strangely similar to Judge Stone's, of course). At the end of this episode, now-Judge Fielding presides over a drunk and disorderly case featuring none other than Marsha Warfield - Roz, the last in the original series' long-line of female bailiffs. What a "coincidence"!

Of course, this wasn't really a surprise - a cameo from the old show was expected at some point. Personally, I was hoping that Richard Moll might show up. (Moll is still acting - not retired - but perhaps he's just not interested in revisiting Bull again.) Of course, sadly, other cast-members from the original show are no longer around, including Markie Post, Charles Robinson, Selma Diamond, Florence Halop, Paula Kelly, and of course, Harry Anderson.

So was this episode a way to write John Larroquette off the show and give his character a proper send-off? Or maybe Larroquette only signed on for a single season as a way to help get the reboot on its feet, to lend it an air of authenticity as a link to the original. Either way, if Larroquette is gone from season 2, then the show is basically doomed unless serious cast changes are made - primarily prosector Olivia and bailiff "Gurgs" (Rauch will never leave the role she created for herself).

And what of John Larroquette? Of course, in television anything can happen. He could easily return to NYC next season via a couple of cleverly-written lines. (But currently with the writers on strike, that possibility, as well as the entire next season, is in limbo.) Less likely is that the show shifts its focus to Judge Fielding's court.

And what of Warfield (Roz)? Was this a one-shot gimmick or will she figure into season 2, perhaps replacing Larroquette in the cast? Too soon to tell.

I watched every episode of the first season of this reboot. I gave it the benefit of the doubt, as reboots of classic shows are incredibly difficult to successfully pull off. But this reboot is simply a hollow echo of what the original "Night Court" was. Not EVERY show needs to be rebooted and some classics stand on their own. In short. "Night Court" did NOT need to be remade.

The season 1 finale did not leave me wanting more of this version. While NBC may be hungry for content, this show doesn't seem ready for prime-time broadcast. Season 2 should be relegated to their streamer Peacock and let us remember "Night Court" the way it was.

Titans: Titans Forever (2023) Season 4, Episode 12

A sort of lackluster series finale

[5/10 · 12 May 2023]

While this started out as an edgy and interesting take on the old "Teen Titans" concept, it devolved into a predicatble "Good vs. Evil" show about magic and sorcery in its final season. This is just my opinion, but this final season missed a major opportunity by not making Lex Luthor the "big baddie". Instead, they dispatched him episode #1 of this final season in favor of a relatively weak pair of villains (Sebastian Sanger and his "mother").

For some reason, Season 4 was set-up as a road trip, complete with a tricked-out RV. Many set-pieces looked like budget concessions, such as the many warehouse-type sets. Other budget-saving measures were visible by having fewer characters (like Nightwing) rarely in costume, opting for street clothes instead. Was this a budget concession for Mr. Zaslav?

We did get "Robin 3.0" in what could only be described as a "Karate Kid"-type training montage. For me, the Tim Drake character was one of the weakest members of the team, dramatically and emotionally. This was a poor casting choice.

Of course in the finale, the good guys win. But there wasn't any explanation of how/why Connor Kent turned on the team earlier in the season, or why he inexplicably redeemed himself in the end. Also, the use of Red Kryptonite to help resuscitate Connor was completely inconsistent with DC content. Red Kryptonite is supposed to be unpredictable, having random effects on different Kryptonians. And its effects supposedly only last between 24 and 72 hours. So how did this bring Connor back to life? Did the writers not do their research?

Also, no Titans die in the end, although it is teased in the final fight scene. So there was no real sense of danger.

While the final cameo of Jason Todd (Red Hood) was a nice touch, clearly there were some glaring missed opportunities for cameos. Missing in action were Barbara Gordon, Dawn Granger (Dove), Bruce Wayne (who was never in costume as Batman), or Superman - although we did see the latter's boots in a close-up shot. There are probably other cameos that could have been integrated into the finale that I haven't listed.

Of course, the final episode would not be complete with a final gathering in the last few minutes to wrap up some some characters arcs. None of them really disappear, but clearly the Titans team pretty much disbands. And given the new ownership at DC's parent (WBD), don't expect any follow-up or spin-offs.

Like many other Berlanti-produced DC shows (such as "Supergirl" and "The Flash"), they start out strong but cannot sustain the energy. In the end, the final season often comes as a welcome relief as the characters limp to a conclusion. Sadly, "Titans" also followed this same playbook.

The Flash: A New World, Part 2: The Blues (2023) Season 9, Episode 11

How not to write the final episodes of a series

[1/10 · 12 May 2023]

This seems to be a polarizing episode - some reviewers liked it, while others are critical. I, for one, think the producers are wasting what few episodes they have left to bring the series to a satisfying conclusion.

The series is called "The Flash", but in this episode, it should have been called "Where's The Flash?", as the title character does not show up until deep into the episode, and then with barely any screen time.

This episode really centers on the supporting team, which is not the strongest element of the show. (Side note - so many people are aware of who the Flash really is, that it must be the worst kept secret in town.) And while bringing back a character from very early in the series may have seemed like a good idea, it won't connect for any viewers who weren't there from the beginning.

What's missing are any final cameos from important supporting characters such as Cisco Ramon and Harrison Wells (in all his permutations). Maybe they are being saved for the final 1 or 2 episodes, or they could just as easily not show up at all (despite each being in nearly 150 episodes).

The showrunner has also done a poor job of setting up the climax for the series finale. My guess is that it may probably go like this: There will be a seemingly impossible cliffhanger at the end of episode 12, which will be resolved about 45 minutes into the finale (episode 13). That will leave 15 minutes to wrap-up and/or say goodbye to the various characters. Perhaps there will be a mini-cliffhanger or a hint of a potential spin-off. (But since the CW has been sold to Nexstar, it's unlikely they will continue any Flash-related story lines. Nexstar has been cancelling many scripted shows and are rumored to focus the CW on "less expensive originals", whatever that means).

So much like another Berlanti show ("Supergirl"), "The Flash" is limping towards its finale. It ran out of steam several seasons ago - even Grant Gustin looked bored playing the title character and seems to have avoided wearing the red suit as much as possible. Here's hoping these last two episodes will attempt to redeem the series a bit - but don't bet the farm on it.

A Face in the Crowd (1957)

A masterpiece which could easily be remade today

[10/10 · 3 May 2023]

"A Face In The Crowd", like "Network" is a cautionary tale of the power and influence of the media and those who wield (or abuse) that power. And considering this was released in 1957, it contains some very current messages about both media and influencer. Amazing how Kazan and Schulberg sort of predicted the rise of the media influencer that we see too much of today.

In the 1950's, the medium was television, but today, you don't need a network to be an "influencer" - just a camera or smartphone is all you really need.

This story is crying for an update and remake, again commenting on the role of "new media" and "influencers". There's a LOT of relatively pointless remakes and reboots that have been made I(and continue to be made), but this is a title that remains timeless and valuable.

Nothing Lasts Forever (2022)

A truly eye-opening documentary

[9/10 · 24 April 2023]

This is worth the 90 minutes runtime, which peels back the veneer of the diamond business - more accurately a cartel. Anyone who is skeptical of large corporations was probably already skeptical of the myriad ad campaigns surrounding the diamond industry. And while the documentary seems to focus more on engagement rings, the whole industry seems tainted.

Two people interviewed stand out in this documentary. First is jewelry designer Aja Raden, who is not shy about ripping the lid off the rather secretive diamond cartel, especially De Beers. Raden paints De Beers as a monopolistic organization that controls the supply - and therefore pricing - of a significant percentage of the world's gemstones. And when it is uncovered that some - or maybe a lot - of diamonds on the market may actually be synthetic (not natural), DeBeers comes off almost like a criminal organization. If they know about the synthetic diamonds (those that are "grown" in a lab), which are much less valuable than natural diamonds, then they are operating a fraudulent business. But De Beers will never admit that. Instead, they will continue to try to convince you that an engagement ring is worth the 2 months salary (or maybe 3 to 4 months) that the price commands. Who else does that?

The other interviewee is Martin Rapaport, an industry insider (CEO of Rapaport Group) and easily the ***worst*** salesman on why we should buy diamonds. His arguments are old-school misogyny, mainly focused on diamond engagement rings and how they make "women feel valued." His opinions totally ignore other retail channels for diamond, including earrings, bracelets, necklaces, watches, etc. And eh remains completely dismissive of synthetic diamonds, which obviously threaten his bottomline. Instead of finding a way to help the industry pivot, he remains an obstructionist.

Even De Beers only recently began selling their own line of synthetic diamonds, but still disses their worth. Not unlike the Koch Brothers or ExxonMobil dissing electric cars.

So why not 10 stars? The documentary ends on an unresolved note regarding a gemologist attempting to create the "perfect synthetic", something that no "expert" will ever be able to detect (despite millions of synthetics already in the market and undetected by these same "experts"). I wish the documentary had reached a more concrete conclusion.

Star Trek: Picard: The Last Generation (2023) Season 3, Episode 10

A satisfying end, and maybe links to spin-offs

[10/10 · 21 April 2023]

Season 3 of Star Trek: Picard delivered on what viewers were waiting for. And while seems unlikely that Paramount would go for a Season 4, money **does** talk, although most of the principals may be finally ready to say goodbye to their long-time roles.

With the exception of the end-credit teaser, there is another possible offshoot. Hear me out.

Now that we have "Captain Seven" (or should it be "Captain of Nine" - those Borg names are tricky), there's a potential that she and Raffi (or some other partner) start a family and the Seven name carries on for generations. That leads to the potential for the return of an old original series one-off character - Gary Seven - who appeared only once, in "Assignment: Earth" (March 1968). That episode was also a "back-door pilot" for a potential series with a time-traveler who basically enforces time-line stability.

So could Gary Seven be a future descendant of Seven of Nine (aka Annika Hansen)? As we've seen on Trek, the writers will make anything possible if there's a reason to. In reality, it is highly doubtful there is a Gary Seven series in the future. But if so, there's a possible Trek tie-in with character more than with the OG Kirk and Spock.