Reviews

I enjoyed E1 and thought I may have found a new favorite series, wondering why I had never ever bothered with it in the past. Like many, I noticed it on my Prime lineup - but it's been on this platform since it's inception yet there are only 104 reviews, many from Prime members just recently. I'm not sure if there's anything to read into that but it seems to suggest that people who loved it while it was airing simply watched because there was nothing else on. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, I realize it's difficult to conceptualize a time when we were at the mercy of 3 or 4 broadcast channels that were owned by 1 or 2 conglomerates. When a show came on once a week, we all gathered around the single television in the main room to find out what happened after the cliffhanging episode of the prior week. We got up to run to the bathroom only during commercial breaks while the person who didn't have to go gathered more drinks and popcorn from the kitchen.

Part of the appeal of shows like Northern Exposure, Cheers, Dynasty, or Full House was discussing the characters and their dilemmas. We've lost that now as we all sit in the same house with our noses in our individual devices chatting with strangers on social media about our thoughts.

But at least it's something to miss about godawful shows like this one that would not survive with today's more fastidious consumer. There are shows that stand the test of time but there are other shows that we look back on and wonder why we spent any time on them.

For me, Northern Exposure is a great premise that was poorly executed. It reminds me of that super awesome first date that keeps you coming back even though that cool person you got your hopes high for has failed to resemble the funny, considerate, uplifting potential mate for the ensuing 3 weeks and it's time to cut your loses. (I actually spent 4 weeks on this show.)

Joel is obviously meant to represent the high-achieving, highly educated and high expectations college graduate that the lower class love to hate but whose taxes run half the programs we all rely on while Maggie represents every woman who is independent but who men like to believe really is just holding out due to unexplored unrealistic psychological problems. These two characters are the least likeable but are focused on for more than 50 percent of each episode.

The remaining town folk are fairly interesting and could have won me over but waiting through such lengthy, forced dialog for 5 minutes or more several times per episode just to see some of the other folk is just not a good use of my time.

I also agree with many reviews that the college-age girl with the 62 year old was a bit much, especially when her previous love interest was also someone who should know better. But I'm sure the writers added that as a definitive example of the fact that being in such a small town in Alaska means virtually no rules, no laws, and in your face eccentricities that are sure to make you feel something one way or the other.

My favorite character is Ed who while appearing to be a step and fetch it type is actually one of the few educated of the bunch with manners and a decent vocabulary. Perhaps the show is summed up when in the early episodes in S1 we learn that the hermit who came to Cicely for privacy and peace, Soapy, was actually a highly educated professional in his life before Alaska.

One thing I had looked forward to was the chance to observe how people deal with each other when there's really no where to go for them or you when they misbehave - you put up with each other and deal with things by looking for solutions and putting the past away as soon as possible. If the show had focused on that with a spot light on other players, my review would be much different. Instead, it's like watching weeds block the view of the night full of twinkling stars. I'm sure Morrow played his part as expected but Joel is so vile, deceptive, arrogant, brash, and entitled you just can't stand him; Maggie is so sarcastic you just want to wipe your hands every time these 2 are on the screen together, which is far too often. I mean ALASKA for heaven's sake - show me some of the land and the locals. But no.

On a final note, I'd like to point out that Maurice, contrary to one of the reviewers here, is not at all representative of the maga crowd except under the made up narrative of the 2016 POTUS candidate who did not win and has since been proven to have paid numerous people to support tall tales in many other areas, as well.

Earlier seasons of Frasier are so hysterical! In season 2 starting with episode 20 and forward reminds me of how hysterical David Hyde Pierce is as Niles. Of course Bebe is a great character as are all the characters on Frasier. But in particular David Hyde Pierce is one of those comedic geniuses that I feel has been overlooked in film as a whole. Of course we get to see him in this long running series, but he is the epitome of perfect timing and physical comedy. I know there are only a few reviews here and chances are no one will see this for years but I felt I owed it to the series after reviewing the entire series with only six or seven stars because of how downhill it goes near season 7 and onwards.

One review claims that he's disgusted with how Frasier dumps women after bedding them but the main thread of the entire series is normally Frasier being dumped. I also would like to point out that in this episode it was Bebe who led him to believe they had slept together so she could create the scene on the window ledge. I would venture to ask who would blame Frasier for being seduced by someone so obnoxious and demanding as Bebe, regardless. In that scenario I would say that Frazier was the one being used.

I'm going to also just mention, reading through the reviews on the Fraser series, every now and then you get some snide comment about how David Hyde Pierce doesn't really like women and they clearly feel that is a very important point that people who enjoy his acting didn't know. I didn't know for years but that didn't change my opinion about him in any way whatsoever. And I also didn't think it was at all obvious just from looking at him, as some people like to point out. A lot of men are very effeminate but they love women.

As much as we all enjoyed watching Niles Pine after daphne, I think they really ruined the show by putting them in a relationship together or perhaps more specifically they ruined it by turning it into this huge psychological memo jumbo. I think they should have totally enjoyed each other and Niles should have had this over the top romantic relationship with her just like he did before she knew about his feelings. It made me realize that although this show centers around psychiatrist, albeit fussy ones, the psychology touted in the show is often inaccurate. Such as when Fraser tells Niles that he has this perfectionist concept of Daphne and that it's destroying her and their relationship just so that they could throw in her getting fat trying to cover the pregnancy, that was hogwash and really destroyed what they could have done with that relationship. In fact they could have spun off a show with just Daphne and Niles with Frasier coming to visit now and then.

But overall some of the clever dialogue in this series has always sent me rolling on the floor.

I gave this a peek for 2 episodes and probably won't continue. The fish is extremely annoying, for one thing. But while the stories are interesting, the host just uses modern search results to reach conclusions - meaning he is holding out popular opinion as factual results. For instance, he claims the first mention of Big Foot was in 1924 and was proven to be a hoax by park rangers. That is actually not a true story but was made up in the 1980s to disuade people from going on Mt Shasta as they had a number of thrill seekers get lost or injured in the attempt and were tired of spending resources on the Big foot enthusiasts. I'm not a believer nor disbeliever but I know the origin of that story.

The cell phone from the woman leaving NASA is easily researched - she was holding the microphone and the larger piece with the battery was in a shoulder bag.

The show isn't bad for amateur work but I dislike shows that try to explain phenomenon as simple hoaxes.

The high star reviews here are obviously solicited by the channel because even very well-known and truly popular shows like Dr G and Unsolved Mysteries only have a few reviews.

The trailer drew me in and, unlike some reviews, I did not feel that it misrepresented the film. Oyelowo really makes this film work, he seems to really pull out the humor of his part with perfect expressions and actions . Him and Connie Nielsen were the standout stars for me and I should mention the kids did a great job, as well, considering I normally don't like inexperienced child actors in a film- they did not come off as an experienced despite their limited dialogue. A lot of people mention Kaley Cuaco being such a great actress but I personally never heard of her before and the fact that she's a dead ringer for Leah Remini is kind of distracting. I mean the Brooklyn housewife who speaks and acts just barely above trailer living just didn't seem like the best lead for this role. Having said that, I admit Kaley did a great job it just felt more like a comedian trying to act serious instead of a serious actress pulling off a good comedy role like stars such as Sandra Bullock or Vivica A Fox have been known for . I haven't seen Connie Nelson in that much although I just recently watched her in Bob Odenkirk's Nobody - good film - and I do remember her in Gladiator. But I haven't realized until now she has a resemblance to Kim Basinger, especially in her later years.

This film is surprising and while some people may consider it a rip off of this film or that film, I didn't feel that way at all. It actually had a unique vibe and it moved quickly wrapping up well. Of course, it's a dramatic action comedy so we already know it's not realistic - we don't need to even broach that subject. My personal opinion about this having a lot of low star reviews is that people aren't ready for women to be in that kind of a role even though we had Emma Peal way back in the 60s, Cleopatra Jones in the 80s and many more bad arse women since. I mean this is not a new thing guys, come on and get up to speed.

I found this film very entertaining and I was a little sad when it ended even though I liked the ending. I think women will definitely like it more than guys for the mere fact that they may feel emasculated by the role of the husband and have a lot of criticism for it. But for women, he rolled with the punches and we all knew that they loved each other, and that's what you do for love.

I'm one of those people who loves Brainiac type shows. So of course I thought this was going to be a really great show. The first thing that disappointed me was that they start out way up at a question 90% of the people surveyed got correct and very slowly dwindle down to 1%. I do have a high IQ but I thought these were relatively easy questions and was quite surprised how hard they were for some of the100, but in fairness they weren't really questions about intelligence but rather questions about perception mainly. Or I should say ability to perceive the twist, if you will. For example one of the questions is These two states: South Dakota and North Carolina can form two completely new state names, what are they? I think it's very obvious the new states are North Dakota and South Carolina but yet six people got that wrong out of the remaining 43 or so. It should have been more fun than it was, I thought the host was okay but I'm not a fan- I don't really care for hosts who think that teasing and putting people down is funny or entertaining. In particular, I thought it was very strange that only a few people were focused on out of 100 and one woman, who apparently only had one kidney, was focused on four times - or 12 if you count the number of times the camera focused in on her for no apparent reason. With 100 contestants you would think they could talk to more people or at least not focus on the same people two three and four times. I would have also like to have heard from the people who missed a question as to why they came to the conclusion they did. I only missed one question because I couldn't figure out how the map was configured. So I guess you could say that part of the difficulty is the short amount of time given to reach an answer. At any rate I'll probably continue to watch this as it becomes available as I know the British version is very popular; however I do hope they are more challenging questions to come as these were quite pedestrian in my opinion. Another example is, basically, in the English alphabet which picture represents the 23rd letter. Several people got that wrong. So am I that smart or are they that dumb? I know it's hard for people with higher IQs to understand those with lower IQs and vice versa but I'm just thinking that is a pretty simple question. Of course initially you do have to figure out that it's discussing the English alphabet- maybe that was the tough part for some people. As I said I'm not fond of the host but I don't hate him either. Hopefully they're just on a learning curve right now- with 100 people surely there are more faces we can see besides the hosts favorites.

Initially, I couldn't watch this show due to the graphic nature and heavy topic. But as I watched a few more, it became almost an educational show for me. It's fascinating to realize just how fragile life is and the simple ways lack of health or exposure to accidents, assaults, or toxins can change the trajectory of life on a dime.

Dr. G is one of those one-in-a-million people who works in a niche industry and has the ability to relate her findings in a way that is articulate and personable. I have to wonder whose idea it was to produce such a show and imagine NCIS's Ducky may have had some influence. Her high-pitched vocalizing isn't always easy on the ears but in many ways she feels like someone we might know and trust.

They drag it out quite a bit as most reality shows do - could it be this; could it be that; who is to blame... But most times the answer is a surprise to the viewer.

I'll glad they don't actually show the dead bodies and autopsies, that would be too graphic. The reenactments are sufficiently difficult to watch. As well, there are laws against showing dead bodies on tv and to get permission would mean going through a lengthy process per autopsy.

But for those saying the family photos are actors - you're wrong about that. In the show itself, there is a tag when it's a reenactment that says Dramatization. Everything else is actual.

Not all MEs are responsive. When my mother died of cancer, the COD said the cause was complications of a pelvic fracture with secondary cause being cancer. This puzzled me for years and I never got a response from the very young ME. I've read that cancer deaths are hidden under secondary causes, which I still believe and believe that's what happened to my mother. But in one episode where Dr. G explains how elderly who break hips can have a series of events from it, I was able to understand why the rookie ME put that as COD. However, my mother was ravaged by late stage pancreatic cancer (or more specifically, theradiation destryed her insides) and had just days to live when she created an unexpected situation for herself by trying to walk over to adjust a small heater. She slipped in her socks and fractured her pelvis. While the hospice nurse called the emergency doctor, my mother called a neighbor for sympathy who misunderstood and thought she was home alone and needed help. They called 911 and the police were the1st responders who thought she was immaciated from neglect and rushed her to the hospital where they treated her only for the fracture. By the time we got her back, she lived for only 3 more hours. We had just gotten her back from a hospice facilty so she could die at home - her request - when this happened. It made me understand fully why some families opt to not have medical personnel involved at all when they know they have a fatal illness.

Any hoo, I've learned a lot from Dr G and find it one of the most unique shows ever. She humanizes the process.

This is one of my all-time favorite comedies. The concept of the characters is hilarious - especially the male security officer in a hot female form - as a woman myself, I thought Sally was one of the funniest characters. While Lithgow is a very talented actor and perfect for the part, Dick was not my favorite by any means - he was more the brunt of jokes and often got way too much spotlight. I stopped watching Saturday Night Live way back when it started leaning toward extreme liberalism, so I didn't know Jane's character was from there for many years. The elder information officer in the form of a teenager was Jonathan's best role to date, imo. All the characters were important to the show though sometimes it veered into craters, you could say, that detracted from the great flow, from my perspective, such as when they had Shatner on and decided to make him the big giant head. I felt the leap from imagining where the crew were from to detailing it with this womanizing grifter destroyed something special. It kind of never recovered and even brought this back in several times. Shatner is a great actor but the scenario was poorly thought out.

But essentially, the show is a great comment on the human condition and the rediculousness of taking ourselves so seriously.

I have watched the series a number of times because I try new shows but there's nothing like a good classic. It's right up there with shows like Two & a Half Men (w/Sheen), Malcolm in the Middle, The Simpson, and Married with Children. I could binge-watch any of those.

I can't give a higher score after around season 7. By season 9, it's changed far too much. Not only because Niles and Daphne become a couple, although that removed some of the most anticipated fodder from the show - Niles pining for Daphne & hysterical comments describing the never revealed Maris were some of the pinnacles of humor for this series. Fraiser and Niles played off each other so well and Niles was no less important; perhaps even more important. But later Seasons have far too much focus on Fraiser despite that the success of the series had previously been with other characters played off of him. Now it's become the axis with no spokes; a broken wheel. Additionally, the ridiculousness of pretending Daphne gained weight just to hide her pregnancy was a severely lacking set-up that was almost like an interruption in the show itself. Dozens of shows have successfully simply filmed the pregnant actress from the neck up with body doubles for full-length distant shots - there's a good reason it's done that way. It detracted from what should have been a romantic fun new relationship, saddling the new couple with bogus psychological hurdles. Nevertheless, I pressed on hoping for a return to some of the earlier cleverness but I'm calling it quits in S9 after enduring long redundant episodes of Fraiser's inability to form relationships with women and his endless tantrums with Martin. Fraiser oversized ego had too much spotlight instead of just being the catalyst.

To be clear, my review is re the original Fraiser series that ended in 2004. I personally don't believe anything that lacks Niles or Daphnie should be called by the same name. All the main cast is missing except Fraiser, who was, tbh, not the character I noticed most from Cheers. I guess it's not unlike 2.5 Men where the show changed beyond recognition but was still given the title of the once iconic comedy series. However, unlike Sheen, who truly was the centerpiece of the show, Grammer is more of a bank to shoot jokes off from. Not that he could be replaced easily, either, just wasn't the star, from my perspective. Niles had most of the best lines and his timing was impeccable. Roz was also a great character.

I have been a regular viewer for many years and have rewatched some of the first seasons more than once. But every time I try to get into these later seasons it just feels like a waste of time.

I see many people claim it's the number one sitcon ever & longest running. But in reality, Fraiser is around #10 on a list that has The Simpson's & Modern Family rated at a higher popularity; and there are several longer running series including The Simpsons, Two & a Half Men, Big Bang Theory, and Ozzie & Harriet.

I think most the reviews are Filipino or just Kane fans, apparently known as Kaniacs. Season one was entertaining but the crux of Filipino actors detracts from a broader value for the show, thus it was sent to Freevee instead of being picked up for the second season, officially ending the series. None too soon, if you ask me. Season two has changed significantly going from a focus on Alex in an action comedy, the star of the show from his wildly popular hitter character on Leverage, to attempting to make this into an action drama starring all the Filipino actors with a side of Christian Kane. It just doesn't work. The stories are too heavy with family feuds and wartime anti American sentiments. And the little child, barely 13 by her appearance, getting married? It feels like the show is not for general consumption anymore but is just a freeforall of getting every Filipino in front of the camera for a "let everyone have a turn" mentality to appease the islands. Which it may very well be - Dean Devlin was born and raised in the States but is half Filipino by ancestry. Almost Paradise is the first American series ever to be shot all in the PI.

It would be more entertaining and more realistic to make theshow focus on Alex as a playboy where he runs into international spies on vacation and such. After all, Filipino women love American men.

I'm disappointed this show has become so convoluted and poorly written.

I'm surprised at all the reviews calling this an action film with no mention of the obvious Dark Comedy in almost every scene. One review actually says it's the best action film they've seen calling it daring. But the 2 leads are comedic actors, the little girl is constantly optimistic, he was searching for a kitty bracelet. The fact that Odenkirk is playing an aged badarse ex military is one of thebiggest hints - and the corny music. Yes, it's gory and violent but this is the definition of dark comedy. Think Violent Christmas - hopefully everyone understood the humor there.

Many will be reminded of Michael Douglas in Falling Down. And I also think it borrows humor from Meeting Evil, which was dismissed as a poorly written thriller because people didn't get it.

The film want my cup of tea but I watched because Odenkirk was so good in BrBa and did his best with the inferior Better Call Saul. This was actually a great roll for him and the story line will be appreciated by those who are simple people but wish they could be a badarse 😊

There are a relatively few films devoted to spotlighting issues that are not well-known or detailing the most human issues in a much larger picture. We can include films like Vietnam, The Killing Fields, Gandhi, Schindler's List, and Sound of Freedom. I now place The Covenant in that same category. I think of myself as a pretty informed person but I had no idea this was happening. A little research confirms that hundreds of thousands of Afghan allies are still awaiting visas and living in hiding while those who did make it to the U. S. often live in fear of the current administration revoking what is called Humanitarian Parole.

The online journal foriegnpolicy dot com says, in part: During the United States' poorly handled retreat from Afghanistan in 2021, military equipment worth about $7 billion was left behind and ended up with the Taliban or on the black market. But more shocking is the moral cost of leaving behind tens of thousands of Afghan allies who sacrificed so much.

Why are we allowing millions of illegals into the US but not retrieving these individuals and their families, some of who went to the depths of hell for the promise of asylum, much as Ahmed did for John.

The same article brings to light the fact that these allies would be useful here in the U. S. forming a talent pool of linguists, cultural experts, and proven patriots.

Watching the many photos of troops with their ally at the end of the film really hits home the importance of the subject.

There were times in the film I felt it dragged a bit but it keeps your attention and the fight scenes are very realistic. Some reviews have criticized a lack of attention to detail but for the average viewer that was not obvious. One person actually called it a bromance but he totally missed what was happening - yes, there was respect and compassion between John and Ahmed but Ahmed was relying on the promise of asylum and he also would have been a dead man if he didn't keep John alive to prove he was an ally. The bond between soldiers is one of the strongest ever known and Ahmed was definitely a soldier.

This is the kind of thing I lose sleep over. I know this isn't based on a true story but rather on poetic justice, which all of them deserve.

I don't recall if I watched this in the 80s. I loved Charlie's Angels, every teen girl tuned in weekly. And I remember The Burning Bed. But for me, Fawcett was the wrong choice here. I know a lot of people will disagree because the fans just want to adore her. But Downs was a homely looking woman with an equally uninteresting wadrobe, a sarcastic demeanor and an inability to stop talking. Yet the producers not only don't attempt to make Farrah look the part or fully characterized Diane but actually accentuate her figure and flaunt her hair always with full make-up and logs of the glamorous smile. The only acting seemed to be adding a grovely twang that I wouldn't characterize as Diane or Farrah, and a lot of eye rolling. It makes the film seem to be about Farrah. And let's face it, much like Lee Majors was the reason she got the part in Charlie's Angels, O'Neil is the reason she got this part.

I am not anti Farrah in any way but I'm the most objective review on here. Over the years, beautiful but talented actresses have bared it all to prove their acting ability - Nichole Kidman, Angela Bassette, Elizabeth Taylor, Betty Davis... But Fawcett is always playing to the camera instead of acting.

So what we get is a frame of a tragic, shocking story that we can barely tell is in this film because it's so focused on making it all about Diane in order to put Farrah in front of the camera for 90% of this endless mini series.

I know that back in the 80s it was all about getting the most viewers for as long as possible to use for advertising spots. But this was a huge story in the news and anyone could have played Diane and gotten high ratings. Heck, just having Ryan O'Neal would have bumped the ratings way up. Farrah was pigeon holed for Charlie's Angels and nite she was in the past until her new boyfriend wanted to help get her back in tv.

People forget, when she broke her contract with Charlie's Angels she was black listed from the industry; no one would touch someone they couldn't depend on. When she started dating O'Neal, he became her leverage.

But bad acting and famous hair only gets you so far. She destroyed any hope of being taken seriously when she demanded to be put on a poster practically bare in a time when soft p-orn was deeply frowned on by average American households. Things are different now, though not necessarily improved.

Farrah was used for her attraction to men and was never a serious actress. We could say that isn't her fault but this film deserved to be taken more seriously.

Some reviews make a point to not only compare this to American challenges but are very critical of the way American shows apparently try so hard to make the show loud and chaotic. In reality, the difference is American shows use a sports caster to avoid the monotonous repetitive uninteresting comments from all the players; they add exciting music and narrate the difficulty to keep you interested, invested & informed. All of that is sorely lacking here. It takes 30 minutes for the gathering room to fill slowly with 100 participate repeating Hello and the same comments and exclamations. The remainder of E1 didn't get much better as we endure the bad voiceovers of 100 athletes all sounding like GI Joe from a 1960s dubbed film. After an excruciating 10 minutes of watching people hang from cross bars and listening to what sounds like the same voice over actors speaking for all the players with repetative comments and sounds, the scene ends without revealing the winner forcing you to begin E2 where yet another 50 players begin the exact same challenge with almost no introduction.

As for the challenge, it felt very trite and pointless, watching them hang with zero rules - for instance, if they are supposed to hang by their arms from the red beams, why do we see them grasping their legs for leverage, hanging by their chin, and pretzeling between the black support beams? You would never see such improvisation in an American game where you have clear rules such as in the military - any military - where hanging by your arms means hands on the bar, body dangling.

This show desperately needs a commentator and to focus on a few interesting points and move forward.

I'm not sure who would find this exciting other than the athletes involved and other competitors.

I'm a big sci fi fan, and I've been around a while. But the most profound dialog regarding artificial life forms I've heard was from Star Trek TNG. Picard is determined to prove Data is a sentient being and in his closing argument he tells the court, "Now, the decision you reach here today will determine how we will regard this creation of our genius. It could significantly redefine the boundaries of personal liberty and freedom - expanding them for some; savagely curtailing them for others. Are you prepared to condemn him and all who come after him, to servitude and slavery?"

When i was a law student, this topic was a fav in mock trials - are they property; at what point do they become a race?

If you haven't seen Outside the Wire with Anthony Mackie, I highly recommend it.

I'm perplexed at the reviews comparing this to Blade Runner or claiming there were a lot of plot holes. I see this film as very HG Wells where typical humans are trying to navigate and apocalyptic future. At first, it's frustrating because we anticipate Banderos being a hero at some point but it's not the kind of hero were expecting.

I wanted the robot dog to be something else at first but then it makes sense.

As someone in the tech field, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say computers will never become sentient despite the compassion we have for the robots here or how believable Brent Spiner made Data. The idea of a global computer like Skynet becoming oppressive is more realistic.

It's sad to see this film barely grossed 7 mil. Not sure why it did so badly except people just weren't ready to see something so dystopian.

Great film, realistic scenery and costumes, well acted by all.

It's my second time watching Season 1. Having seen most the other seasons, I feel like this island may have been the most extreme environment due to the relentless moisture and apex predators. The winner here was an entertaining fella with a lot of knowledge and a good attitude.

It's easy to critisize the guys who tapped out due to fear but part of survival is knowing your limits. That cop got dropped in a bear den and once you know the fear might freeze you up, your life is a stake for sure.

I felt for Mitch because there is an intution that comes when a loved one is about to leave this life.

The final four were all very worthy but the winner was extremely likable. And the ending where he talks about humans and what he's taken away from the experience is very moving.

It's interesting that the runner up ends up talking himself into leaving and then goes on to win another season.

There's no way I could survive here but inmy 20s or 30s i would have liked to try. It definitly takes a certain mindset to live among predators. Kudos to all contestants.

I enjoyed this film. It's interesting to note it was released the same year as the more well-known film called Fat sick and nearly Dead (a phrase from a raw vegan book from the '80s). I'm not sure why one was so popular and the other one seems so obscure except that Joe Cross has a lot of money and made sure to Market it heavily. Because otherwise these two films are really about the same thing. I've studied raw vegan living for almost 20 years now, maybe longer, and I know that juicing and eating raw vegan are in fact paths to allowing your body to heal itself. They are what places like hypocrites and Optimum Health Institute use. The Gratitude Cafe is a very unique Institution. I like the ones in LA better where, to my knowledge, they are fully raw while San Francisco and a much more questionable version in Santa Cruz both offer cooked food as well as raw. I have the recipe book as well as the Business model book the owners offer near the cash register.

I do wish they had shown more of what Frank was eating here. The Gratitude Cafe has a great menu that I also would have liked to have seen more of, and a lot of these recipes are things you can learn to make yourself.

It's very honorable that these young men took Frank under their wing, and I know that at the end of the film we see a lot of people dedicated their time, finances, or businesses to make sure the film was produced. I'm sad to think that they didn't include Marketing in all that they accomplished here. As someone who studied marketing and small business, I think they could have really marketing this to several different demographics.

Someone asked what did they do with the composting from Frank's refrigerator. Well I can tell you that is not composting and it went straight to the garbage. You cannot compost processed denatured junk. It'll just sit there. Some people know what I'm talking about - there's an actual study that was done where a McDonald's hamburger and fries was put under glass for several months, and at this point it's going on several years, and it looks exactly the same as the day it was served. But I digress.

It's really exciting to see all the different levels of change that Frank goes through here, not the least of which is 47 lb. Truly if you do wheatgrass and mostly juicing and smoothies you can lose significant weight in a short amount of time but it has to be raw vegan because those are the foods that give your cells the nutrients they need. Kudos to everyone involved.

Ironically I had not seen this film before despite my studies and despite the fact that it's mentioned in a book I've had on my shelf for over 10 years called The Raw cure by Jacoby.

Cheers.

I mean what genre are shows like The Boys or Santa Clarita. They aren't Black comedy but there's definitly a comedic thread here. I tried to stick through the pilot episode but it was hard. When it was over, I felt relieved.

I'm not a gamer - although I did rescue the princess once in the early 90s. My only familiarity with the game Fallout is what I researched before writing this review. So I won't fit in to the 95% category of reviews here. But most sites describe it as anti Capitalist - which is ironic since here in the present we're the closest we've ever been to a nuclear war. But this series starts in the 1950s, like the game, where people were truly afraid of nuclear war. It was a different political climate, to say the least.

From a purely entertainment perspective, this show has not captured my intrigue - at all. The war theme is up my ally but it's just all in the background so far - a glimpse at the helos; some bad mf in iron suits standing by like man servants; a trans "brother" referred to as "their". The bloodshed in pod 33 bordered on comical aided by the lois lane dumdum who suddenly knows how to handle a dart gun and survives by luck.

Speaking of Lucy, she gets a knife in her abdomen where the blade is vertical but when she goes to staple the wound, it's now horizontal. Is this sloppy production or part of the comedy? I mean, it's so blaring, I'm honestly stumped.

Although I'm not fond of the character, I can appreciate the determination and sheltered but diciplined mentality. I'm hoping she becomes a badarse. (Also just kind of glad we're past the whole leading lady must be Hispanic thing.)

The pilot is presented in 4 sections to intro the various groups of characters, which I think was a poor decision. Traditionally, a pilot grabs your interest by investing in a handful of characters. It would have intrigued me more to have shorter glimpses with more focus on one group or other. Instead, it uses kind of a speed-dating technique. No one likes those.

The pilot had an opportunity to focus on Maximus but his interesting dialog comes after an oddly long pause just in time to almost make the 5 min scene have some value. Until then he seems pretty superficial. But I can tell he's going to be an ingesting character.

To summarize: too slow pace; too much comedic underpinning; boring sountrack; immature gore style.

I don't think I'll be watching more but I thought that about Wheel of Time, too, then it hooked me - The 1st season (2nd Season not recommended). Is GoreCom a category?

Her opening is atrocious. Any comedian looking to grab the crowd needs to have material everyone can identify with. Being a frequent flyer in section D is not a common thing at all. Plus, why call someone's cousin a bidch for workng there? It's the airline, not the employees. But it gives us insight to Ilza's maturity level, or lack of it.

I ff a few times and just couldn't get on board with that nagging yelling voice. Jerry Lewis made it work but he developed a character that went with it. I found all of her material to be overly angry and sexualized (not in a good way). I've seen better female comedians on AGT: He Huang; Vicki Barbolak.