Italy here and a lifelong Whose Line fan, as I hear the host also is. Sadly, copying (verbatim) a honorable and tested format isn't enough. You need master improv comedians, and decent comedians (as these are) is simply not enough. I really hope Frank Matano reads this (ciao Frank) and realizes, as a LOL alumnus, that the Canadian version of LOL was won by Colin Mochrie. I do not need to say more, do I? Of course, season one is bound to have some teething problem. But, and I can't stress this enough, you need to look for improv comedians, as opposed to scripted. Matano himself would be way better as a contestant than as the host.
Reviews
46 Reviews
LOL: Last One Laughing Italy
(2021– )
C'è di peggio, dai.
10 April 2021
Fantastico come un programma da poco impegno come questo scateni le faide. L'avete pagato? No. Vi è piaciuto? Non vi è piaciuto? Ma saranno ca**i vostri? (cit) A me non ha cambiato la vita, ma non l'ha peggiorata. Commentare la qualità delle battute è assolutamente inutile, un comico per far ridere un altro comico principalmente deve fare l'imbecille. Non era uno stand-up show, era una gara di torte in faccia. Ti va, la guardi, non ti va, cambi canale; non è che non ci sia abbondanza di scelta...
Emily's Wonder Lab
(2020)
Useful but meh. My kids like it, but, again meh.
5 September 2020
I usually watch science show for kids, with my kids. Thisone is no better or worse than others, my kids like it, so I'm ok with that. But the kids' lines are SO horribly cheesy and scripted that I really (personally) can't stand watching it. It's the idea by an adult of how an annoying knowitall brat SHOULD talk. Education by the trowel.
Pinocchio
(2019)
Flat
12 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Too sanitized, too much feel-good. The major objection I have is about the missing bits, the scary ones. In the book both Lucignolo and the Fairy die in a heartbreaking way (that should not be a spoiler), and believe me, in Italy the book has been criticized as too scary and traumatic (someone even proposed a R10 rating). You can like or dislike that part, but omitting it is a complete disrespect of the author. Then, the acting. Benigni basically plays himself. Mangiafuoco is played by a honest-to-god marvellous stage comedian which is quite obviously off role. Pinocchio's part is played by a kid whose acting skills are quite wooden (hah). The only truly great acting comes from Cat and Fox. Scenery and musics and costumes are nice, but that's about it. Flat movie.
Mary Poppins Returns
(2018)
A shameless, cold-hearted ripoff
6 May 2019
I saw this movie with little or no expectations, and boy, was I overconfident. It's a scene by scene copycat of the old movie, but with all the heart sucked off. Most actors performance is highly forgettable, with a distinct saving grace for Emily Blunt (and Colin Firth is a believable villain). Old school people give more heart in their cameos that the ensemble of the crew together. I spare it a worse mark because my daughter liked it. And she's seven and doesn't know any better yet.
Early Man
(2018)
Saving grace for Aardman, disappointing screenplay.
10 February 2018
I love to no end anything that Aardman has put out, including the traditional cartoons, and this one is no ecception: as usual, the stop-motion animation is flawless. Too bad that the screenplay seems rushed and underdeveloped, and the jokes did not always work. My kids (male of 8, female of 6) laughed a lot at the football match itself, but as an adult I felt that everything was dull and predictable.
Look, I get it. But.
24 March 2017
Where do I even begin. Probably with just a word: "camp". I get it, the guys wanted to have some fun, they wanted to show they can sing and/or dance. OK, they can. But that was so unbelievably cheesy, and, well, a tad boring. I couldn't but feel a lingering sensation of "I want to gouge my eyes off". Next time a) don't do it and b) put some label like "special unrelated episode" or "April Fool in advance".
Saving Mr. Banks
(2013)
Good movie, too bad it's a fib.
3 January 2014
The truth, a little of the truth, so far from the truth. I read the original novels, and they are indeed pretty far from the Disney Treatment (capitals are in order) they got; yet, I really love the movie (Mary Poppins, that is), but I can also see why Mrs. Travers loathed it. And I read about the real encounter between Walt Disney (a way more unpleasant person than pictured here) and Mrs. Travers, and once again, this is its Disney Treatment. Once again, I liked the movie, a lot; yet once again I see where someone could loathe it. The Disney Treatment is responsible of the popularization of many famous or obscure tales (as an Italian, I'm thinking of Pinocchio); and, at the very same time, it is responsible for their massacre in an orgy of sugary coating. That Pamela Travers had to suffer this twice, is way too cruel. Summing it up: 9 to the movie per se, 5 to the Disney Treatment of reality.
Read the book, skip the movie.
1 April 2010
I'm quite doubtful that anyone will read this, but in case you happened to stumble here: this is a more than decent book, completely spoiled by the screenwriters' ego and crowd-pleasing eagerness. In many, many points the book has been twisted and turned and every single bit of deepening (and bygods, we are speaking of a teen adventure book, so not THAT deep) has been carefully taken away and substituted with a lacquered, pompous, TV-styled gloss. That's the thing: this movie could have been a (not very good) 4-episode TV miniseries, something like Xena meets Hannah Montana. On the opposite, the book is fresh, entertaining and goes down like water. The quite wooden performance of the actors doesn't help either, with a small saving grace for Uma Thurman as Medusa, whereas the other big names (Pierce Brosnan and Sean Bean, namely) don't leave a dent.
What a pity... occasion wasted
16 March 2004
It's so sad to see a movie who has all the chances to become a 2000's Indy,
being handled so hurriedly and, frankly, badly. The premise was alluring, the CGI group worked very hard at it, the actor were all good or acceptable, the
script and/or the editing were really, really cheap. you have the impression all the time to be dragged from scene to blasting scene, missing all the points in between. Six out of ten, just in trust - cause it's OBVIOUS they left room for a sequel.
being handled so hurriedly and, frankly, badly. The premise was alluring, the CGI group worked very hard at it, the actor were all good or acceptable, the
script and/or the editing were really, really cheap. you have the impression all the time to be dragged from scene to blasting scene, missing all the points in between. Six out of ten, just in trust - cause it's OBVIOUS they left room for a sequel.
Mona Lisa Smile
(2003)
"Dead Poets Society" reheated
1 January 2004
Young teacher, old establishment, rebel teaching, wooden students, teacher loses but morally wins. Rings a bell? To me, rings a whole cathedral. Nice-ish movie, nice-ish acting, but definitely a lingering feeling of "Dead Poets Society". I like the premise and I like Julia Roberts (as an actress way more than as a producer). So, why this movie didn't arise in me a single emotion? Throughout? Well no, more precisely - it arose in me a tiny emotion TWICE. For three seconds, counted, each. In two hours. I can understand people liking this movie just if they never saw DPS. Sorry, Julia, 6 out of 10 just because i love you.
Looney Tunes: Back in Action
(2003)
Flat, disappointing and wooden
29 December 2003
Forget "Roger Rabbit", but forget also "Space Jam". It is so sad when three great actors like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Steve Martin blatantly "do it for the > money" (or the carrots, or whatever they pay Daffy with). All three of them do a really poor standard performance... The human villain thinks it's enough to act stupid to look like a cartoon, the two toons seem to justify wooden acting with pretending to be human. A recent Hollywood fashion is an attitude like "Hey, let's get something that worked in the past, cut some stupid expenses like a decent screenwriter, and let's be back in the big bucks again! Just put in some expensive-looking effects and the morons won't notice!" - Matrix 2.1 and 2.2 as a case in point. And the effects are marginally under standard, too. Bottom line, I definitely didn't like it; make it 5/10, and just thanks to the only true professional there: Vile E. Coyote, great as usual (and quoting himself, they pay him WAY too little).
School of Rock
(2003)
It rocks and it rolls
16 October 2003
Well, maybe it's not the most original flick of the century - the ups and downs of the plot are pretty identical to a million of other movies, first in line "Full Monty" - but hey, it IS funny, and graceful, and fresh. The kid stars are acceptably smooth and the head guy is very similar, in role and presence, to the idea I still have of John Belushi (Johnny, Johnny, why did you leave us?). Definitely an amusing alternative to whatever idea you have to spend the evening.
Bend It Like Beckham
(2002)
Cute (and paste)
6 August 2003
Light movie, the sort i like to pass a couple of hours safely without thinking too much. Objections: get "the full monty" and "fat greek wedding", paste them together, add soccer to the mix and you will get something a LOT similar to this movie. Plus, i can't believe that an anorexic blondie like that is a tough number 10 - sorry, i really can't. Given that, definitely worth seeing for a light pastime.
Snow Dogs
(2002)
Come on, it's not that bad
6 August 2003
Typical good feelings movie, Disney-style. As is, i have seen worse, even a LOT worse. Acting is decent, plot makes sense (more or less), gags are average funny and not terribly re-heated, plus the snow scenes are cute. Ok, it's not White Fang, so what? Family fun you expect, family fun you have. That's it.
Secretary
(2002)
Kinda boring
6 August 2003
Well folks, it's not a matter of being open-minded or not... if you saw or rented this movie you knew what it was all about, do you? The point is, after "9 1/2 weeks" these movies of the kind "cute disturbed girl meets charming disturbed guy, they do wild and odd sex, they regret it, with your choice of happy or unhappy ending" - well, they are quite predictable, aren't they. And i assure you, i'm open-minded as the THREE next guys. Worth renting if you are curious or if you have a poor social life (if you know what i mean), but don't expect too much.
Adaptation.
(2002)
Self-contradictory
6 August 2003
I am really, really disappointed with this movie. It started SO right, with the flowers and the odd guy and everything - Nick Cage at his double best, Meryl Streep so much Meryl Streep, the flowers guy so natural - even the meeting with the sell-out screenwriter is sort of touching - and then they say "never, ever get a deus-ex-machina to end your movie, try to get the end consistent with the rest" - AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT FLUNKED! With a crocodile-ex-machina... Sorry folks, 8 that far, 4 to the final trickery, so average a bare 6. If you care, see my comment on "AI" - at least *i* am consistent with myself.
Good, but less than the first one
13 December 2002
First of all, let me say: i gave this 8 over ten. This IS a good movie, just i had my expectations set pretty high after the first, so i was not so much excited. Why? Well, for one the story of the book is a bit weaker (too many "deus ex machina", for one). Now that i think of it, it means that probably the movie was so much well set after the book, that it inherited some of the (minor, very minor) flaws of the book itself. Just an advice, see the first before if you did not, or you will lose a lot of references.
Reign of Fire
(2002)
Talk of plot holes!...
24 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I can't really understand why they budget a squillion dollars for the props and scenery and effects, and don't bother into a decent script. Just let's be merciful and skip the acting (which was just "a bit" bad), but really, you can't forgive them in making you build up such good expectations and then ruin it all with poorly defined, poorly logical and totally arbitrary conclusions, with no respect whatsoever for the IQ of the public.
SPOILERS FROM HERE ON (but really, don't bother to see it)
How did the dragons spread out of UK? Really, you expect me to buy there's ONE male in ALL THE WORLD? No born males? Plus, dragons are born small and die big, right? So they are OLD! Five trillion gazillion females around, and NOT A SINGLE ONE three months after daddy died? Maybe they got depressed for not being laid? Maybe they got depressed in seeing the movie (more likely). The only funny thing saving a bit the movie on the front of original ideas is the two guys, staging "Star Wars" for the kids. No, I changed my mind. It is bad cause it illudes you and make you think you are going to see an intelligent movie. Which is not.
SPOILERS FROM HERE ON (but really, don't bother to see it)
How did the dragons spread out of UK? Really, you expect me to buy there's ONE male in ALL THE WORLD? No born males? Plus, dragons are born small and die big, right? So they are OLD! Five trillion gazillion females around, and NOT A SINGLE ONE three months after daddy died? Maybe they got depressed for not being laid? Maybe they got depressed in seeing the movie (more likely). The only funny thing saving a bit the movie on the front of original ideas is the two guys, staging "Star Wars" for the kids. No, I changed my mind. It is bad cause it illudes you and make you think you are going to see an intelligent movie. Which is not.
S1m0ne
(2002)
Unbalanced, a bit of disappointment...
23 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Ok, it was not bad, at least until twenty minutes or so to the end. A bit slow, if you want, but the idea is good, the girl is nice, Al is Al - you know. In the last twenty minutes they manage to ruin a lot, tho. Themes touched too fast, major plot holes, shallow acting... Let's say in the first one hour and a half there's material for forty minutes, and so there is in the last twenty minutes. Unbalanced, in a word. Too bad, the idea was good and the director - well, "Truman Show" is one of my ten tops ever. Bit of a disappointment.
LITTLE SPOILER HERE
Hey, with a gazillion dollars budget - can't you find a better way to heal a computer virus than to just remove the disk? Norton, you are out of business!
LITTLE SPOILER HERE
Hey, with a gazillion dollars budget - can't you find a better way to heal a computer virus than to just remove the disk? Norton, you are out of business!
Street Fighter
(1994)
Aw come on, what did you EXPECT?
2 November 2002
I begin with the rating - i gave it 5/10. And i am telling you guys of the "zero" patrol: what did you EXPECT? This movie is taken from a VIDEOGAME, come on! Yes, the whole purpose of the movie is coming to the end and show all the characters in suitable costumes doing suitable "special moves". So? I don't think you were expecting Bergman, right? So i tell you - it's bad, bud not THAT bad. It's a comic book, period.
Eeeww
3 October 2002
Congratulations: this is one of the three (3) movies in my life i went out from. And it was when the top of fun was a space movement based on farts (or so i believe, i was dozing anyways). Dull, obvious, un-funny, recycled, stale jokes. I am not against cheap, bodily humor - but even fart jokes can be funny or not. Those are not. A new standard in bad comedies.
Signs
(2002)
How can you like this (well acted, ok) load of manure?
14 August 2002
This movie is well acted. Mel is good, the brother is ok, the kids are great. PERIOD. The story does not make any sense whatsoever. It seems like they ripped some pages at random from random numbers of "National Enquirer". Aliens crop family grief crooks faith god. No punctuation, and i MEANT it. This film is no SF, no family, no faith, no sitcom. This film is STUPID. Zero out of ten if it wasn't for acting, so 4/10. Oh, and - special effects mention for the green sell-o-taped aliens.
Moulin Rouge!
(2001)
Grotesque, yet intriguing
14 August 2002
At first i was a bit surprised and maybe mildly annoyed by the over-the-lines atmosphere of the movie, but when i realized it was MEANT i relaxed and enjoyed it, especially the music references. Cute and entertaining. Very special mention for the tango version of "Roxanne".
Lilo & Stitch
(2002)
Good, but - but good
1 July 2002
Finally Disney has seen the utility of appealing also to the huge audience of overgrown kids (re: 40ish, re: me) who like some nastiness amongst all the syrupy stuff. This is a pretty good movie, as cartoons go. Stitch is great, Lilo (finally) is a bad girl with no excuses save a raging temper (inherited along with her sister's). The side characters are good, if a flinch underdeveloped, even if the chief inspector looks a bit "Men In Black" (willingly, i hope). And most of all - NO BAD GUYS! Finally Disney grasped the idea that everyone is good and bad at times or - as they say - everyone has his moments. The humor is good and, i suspect, heavily inspired by Calvin & Hobbes - the "San Francisco" scene appears IDENTICAL in a strip and the temper and drawing tastes of Lilo are very much alike to Calvin's. The weak point is the hurriedness of plot in the very end - make it 10 minutes instead of 2 and it would still have been fresh, maybe with some flashback. Oh, and stay for the credits - worth it.
Tell Your Friends