Search
Search results
Erika (17788 KP) rated The Devil Next Door in TV
Dec 7, 2019
When I saw this miniseries on Netflix, I was actually looking forward to it. I have read the Nazi Next Door, which featured this dude in the majority of the book. Since I had only read that book, from the perspective of the Nazi Hunters themselves, I was fairly sold that this dude was indeed Ivan the Terrible.
However, now, I'm not so sure. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Obviously, there's a possibility, but now I'm not sure. I do believe that the dude was at least a guard at a Nazi camp.
While this was interesting, towards the end, it grew repetitive. Which is always a death knell for me, and always causes me to rate items lower.
However, now, I'm not so sure. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Obviously, there's a possibility, but now I'm not sure. I do believe that the dude was at least a guard at a Nazi camp.
While this was interesting, towards the end, it grew repetitive. Which is always a death knell for me, and always causes me to rate items lower.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Good Omens in TV
Jun 2, 2019
David Tennant (1 more)
Michael Sheen
I'm not a huge fan of Neil Gaiman (or a fan at all), and I was kind of meh on the novel this is based on. But, when I saw David Tennant and Michael Sheen were cast, I was interested. On a whim, I ended up starting the series last night, and wanted to stay up all night to finish, but didn't.
I liked the series way more than the book itself. I was hooked, and Sheen and Tennant were perfect in their roles. The humor was good, and the casting for the other characters was strong too. Jon Hamm as Gabriel was my other favorite.
Of course, with any TV show, the CGI was shoddy, but it kind of seems like the norm to me. Overall, I'm glad Amazon produced this miniseries, and I may have to watch it again.
I liked the series way more than the book itself. I was hooked, and Sheen and Tennant were perfect in their roles. The humor was good, and the casting for the other characters was strong too. Jon Hamm as Gabriel was my other favorite.
Of course, with any TV show, the CGI was shoddy, but it kind of seems like the norm to me. Overall, I'm glad Amazon produced this miniseries, and I may have to watch it again.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Agatha Christie's Ordeal By Innocence- Season One in TV
Sep 3, 2018
I haven't read the novel this show was based upon, but according to a lot of other reviews I saw, apparently they changed a lot. So, if you loved the book, don't expect the show to be a carbon copy.
Since I didn't read the book, I absolutely loved this miniseries. I did sort of guess who the murderer of matriarch, Rachel Argyll, was, but it definitely left me guessing as to whether or not he/she actually murdered her.
This story involves a family of adopted children, and the parents. One of the sons, Jack, is accused of murdering his mother, and is sent to jail with supposed 'hard-evidence'. All the while, Jack, is claiming he got a ride from some guy, who never comes forward...until after Jack dies in jail. The arrival of the guy from the alibi, throws the family into an uproar, and the killer is revealed.
The first two episodes, you're wondering what actually happened that night, and the third episode is the pay off.
Since I didn't read the book, I absolutely loved this miniseries. I did sort of guess who the murderer of matriarch, Rachel Argyll, was, but it definitely left me guessing as to whether or not he/she actually murdered her.
This story involves a family of adopted children, and the parents. One of the sons, Jack, is accused of murdering his mother, and is sent to jail with supposed 'hard-evidence'. All the while, Jack, is claiming he got a ride from some guy, who never comes forward...until after Jack dies in jail. The arrival of the guy from the alibi, throws the family into an uproar, and the killer is revealed.
The first two episodes, you're wondering what actually happened that night, and the third episode is the pay off.
Alex Wolff recommended Scenes from a Marriage (1973) in Movies (curated)
Erika (17788 KP) rated Surviving R. Kelly in TV
Sep 29, 2019
So, after a tireless search yesterday, I decided to watch this documentary miniseries. It was very disturbing in multiple ways.
For one, it made me glad I never paid for any R. Kelly songs. The only song I have on my iPod was provided to me, courtesy of Limewire. Secondly, it made me feel incredibly terrible for laughing at all of the skits and jokes surrounding R. Kelly, like the Chappelle Show and South Park.
This series features multiple survivors, and the families of women still trapped in this strange sex cult. That dude is sick and likes children. I have to say Vince Staples' rant that was featured in the last ep was my favorite part, because it was purely the truth.
As always, it's interesting to think about that if the victims weren't the race that they are, maybe something would have been done sooner. It really makes you sick to your stomach.
The only thing I didn't like is that some of the episodes repeated portions of the interviews again.
For one, it made me glad I never paid for any R. Kelly songs. The only song I have on my iPod was provided to me, courtesy of Limewire. Secondly, it made me feel incredibly terrible for laughing at all of the skits and jokes surrounding R. Kelly, like the Chappelle Show and South Park.
This series features multiple survivors, and the families of women still trapped in this strange sex cult. That dude is sick and likes children. I have to say Vince Staples' rant that was featured in the last ep was my favorite part, because it was purely the truth.
As always, it's interesting to think about that if the victims weren't the race that they are, maybe something would have been done sooner. It really makes you sick to your stomach.
The only thing I didn't like is that some of the episodes repeated portions of the interviews again.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
My mom took me to see the new It – and it was great. It does have a few changes that are worth noting though – and I’m curious as to how they will play out in the next part. Presently, the film only covers the part that takes place in 1957-1958 (though in the movie, it’s 1988), which leaves things open for another film.
First, I want to say that I have a thing for Bill Skarsgård. I have since I watched Hemlock Grove, where he plays an upir. So finding out that he would be playing Pennywise somehow dispelled my fear of clowns (which actually formed when I was eight and watched the It miniseries – or at least, the first bit of it). Skarsgård performance is spectacular and I have no complaints regarding his acting.
For the most part, It follows a line between the miniseries and the book. When it comes to a tome the size of It, obviously things have need cutting out. To expect more would likely have mean an entire series (not that I’d complain). There are a few things that really bugged me though. First, Richie does not do his voices in It. This is a major character trait that I feel should have been included – especially since he uses his voice imitations in the book to get past Pennywise. To leave out one of Richie’s defining characteristics is disappointing, as I really wanted to see how it would play out.
Second, once again, what Stan sees differs from the book. Those that have read It know that Stan ends up trapped in a standpipe. Here, a corpse comes at him and in order to escape, he recites the names of birds from a book he keeps in his pocket. This causes the door to open and thus Stan Uris lives. His obsession with birds, like Richie’s voice imitations, is another defining characteristic of the boys that is left out.
Because the movie is pressed for time, it’s easier to understand why other elements are left out – such as the real reason behind Eddie Corcoran’s death (which is left simply at “missing” in the film). In fact, several of the disappearance are touched upon just enough to remind viewers how threatening Pennywise is – and that’s perfect for this film.
Overall, I really enjoyed It. I feel that leaving out those two defining characteristics of Richie and Stan was unnecessary. Despite that, It comes in as one of my favorite film so far this year and I might have to bug Mom to get it for me on DVD.
First, I want to say that I have a thing for Bill Skarsgård. I have since I watched Hemlock Grove, where he plays an upir. So finding out that he would be playing Pennywise somehow dispelled my fear of clowns (which actually formed when I was eight and watched the It miniseries – or at least, the first bit of it). Skarsgård performance is spectacular and I have no complaints regarding his acting.
For the most part, It follows a line between the miniseries and the book. When it comes to a tome the size of It, obviously things have need cutting out. To expect more would likely have mean an entire series (not that I’d complain). There are a few things that really bugged me though. First, Richie does not do his voices in It. This is a major character trait that I feel should have been included – especially since he uses his voice imitations in the book to get past Pennywise. To leave out one of Richie’s defining characteristics is disappointing, as I really wanted to see how it would play out.
Second, once again, what Stan sees differs from the book. Those that have read It know that Stan ends up trapped in a standpipe. Here, a corpse comes at him and in order to escape, he recites the names of birds from a book he keeps in his pocket. This causes the door to open and thus Stan Uris lives. His obsession with birds, like Richie’s voice imitations, is another defining characteristic of the boys that is left out.
Because the movie is pressed for time, it’s easier to understand why other elements are left out – such as the real reason behind Eddie Corcoran’s death (which is left simply at “missing” in the film). In fact, several of the disappearance are touched upon just enough to remind viewers how threatening Pennywise is – and that’s perfect for this film.
Overall, I really enjoyed It. I feel that leaving out those two defining characteristics of Richie and Stan was unnecessary. Despite that, It comes in as one of my favorite film so far this year and I might have to bug Mom to get it for me on DVD.
Julia Cafritz recommended Medium Cool (1969) in Movies (curated)
Julia Cafritz recommended Secret Honor (1984) in Movies (curated)
Julia Cafritz recommended Tanner '88 (1988) in Movies (curated)
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Conor McGregor: Notorious (2017) in Movies
Apr 22, 2021 (Updated Jul 4, 2021)
Your standard sports doc - and if there's anyone in the sporting world right now who *isn't* standard, it's Conor McGregor. The general rule of thumb I use for these is whether or not it's more insightful than what I can find from ~10 minutes of research, this is not. For following this guy around for 4+ years you'd think there would be something under the hood but there isn't a single for-the-doc interview in this - just a broken collage of quick 5/10 second conversations that rush right past anything half interesting. I swear this is like 90% B-roll footage. Seems like it's in such a hurry to be another generic, surface-level rags-to-riches documentary for people going into this already knowing they're going to love it. I'm not saying you have to deflate the guy's ego, I like the guy - but if you're going to make a puff piece like this at least make it a good one. It would be so easy to sit back and just let this unique, caustic, energetic performer breathe rather than cutting his screen time to shreds - let it be 3 hours who gives a shit? Would have much preferred a 90+ YouTube compilation of his famed trash talk + fight footage over this "the world isn't going to stop me!" snooze. Should have been a miniseries.