Reviews

50 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
North Country (2005)
5/10
Writer vs. director, who deserves the most blame?
24 April 2024
This should have been a great movie. It has all the ingredients. There is a tremendous cast and a compelling story alongside a groundbreaking legal case. However, it did not work out that way. The writer seems to be unable to identify the actual plot points that are the crux of the story and the director is too intent on providing artistic flourishes that have this audience member yelling at the screen to get on with it already. I don't know for a fact but it would seem that the editor has earned a significant portion of the blame too. The movie is disjointed enough to be nearly incomprehensible at times. Finally, wasting another brilliant performance by Woody Harrelson and making no effort at all to investigate Richard Jenkins' story, making him look like the worst father in America is really criminal.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Don't know whether to blame Fuqua or Scorsese
13 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I really wanted to rate this movie a lot higher than I did but after thinking a little longer I decided that there were just too many disappointments in either the editing or the organization of the concert. "Lightning in a bottle" would be an apt title if they did in fact show the examples from blues history that actually were emblematic of that saying. The most glaring example of having the chance to record, film and honor the greatest modern day blues artist by having him perform one of his earliest numbers instead of his signature song, the song that turned many of the fans in that audience on to the blues in the first place. Another example was the awarding of two of Bobby Bland's songs to a couple of worthy performers (Solomon Burke, who also did a great job on his own "Valley of Tears" and Shemekia Copeland.) They would have done far better to have one of those two, preferably Copeland do "I'll Take Care Of You" where Bland really did catch lightning in a bottle. One more, my own preference would be to have heard Ruth Brown do "Don't Deceive Me" instead of the overly praised "Mama He Treats Your Daughter Mean."

Another complaint regarding the choice of music regards the selection of a total unknown, to me, to sing "Strange Fruit," the Billie Holiday classic. The singer did a wonderful job but I don't know of any sub-genre of the blues that would possibly include that song. Additionally the photos accompanying the performance were off-putting to say the least.

For the good parts: Hubert Sumlin, former Muddy Waters sideman was a joy; Bonnie Raitt was excellent performing an Elmore James number; additionally, Honeyboy Edwards, Buddy Guy. And Mavis Staples were all excellent.

The highlight for me of the concert and film was Odetta singing. Leadbelly's "Jim Crow Blues." What a treat!

My final criticism is the truncated version of. "Love In Vain" the Robert Johnson classic being performed by Keb' Mo." This was explained by the need to get to so many more important blues artists that we only get a soupcon of Johnson's brilliance. Naturally one would wait in vain for any hint that Bessie Smith, Memphis Minnie, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Lonnie Johnson, Lightning Hopkins, Brownie McGhee and Sonny Terry, Blind Willie McTell or the greatest of them all, Big Bill Broonzy ever existed.

I have to say that this seems like a vanity project for Scorsese, a major financial failure it would seem and deservedly so. There are so many good things about it that I still gave it 7 of 10, Odetta was that great.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Aviator (2004)
2/10
The Carpetbaggers was better
3 June 2023
There is not one single acting performance, with the possible exception of Alan Alda's that is worth watching. The writing is an abomination and Scorsese as the director appears to have absolutely nothing left to offer us. Maybe if he had chronicled Hughes' escapades at the Desert Inn before he decided to buy as much of Las Vegas as he could we might have gotten some insight into the tycoon's behavior. Watching his mommy give him a bath while she harps on the danger he was in did not explain anything to me. There is no continuity, the actual chronology is not accurate, no explanation for the source of Hughes' genius and absolutely nothing to explain why anyone would want to work for the man. Do not waste your time unless you are doing a study of Scorsese's work. This is the place to start if you want to see talent going to waste for a big payday.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Unbelievably bad
20 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Don't let anyone kid you, this film has no redeeming qualities. If you like certain performers, as I do, you might be able to sit through it. Shirley McLaine's first feature this also stars the wonderful Mildred Natwick, claiming to be 42 after Edmund Gwenn correctly guessed her actual age, 50. Gwenn is equally delightful as a bogus mariner who never got more than a mile from shore. The plot has no value. "Harry" is McLaine's former husband who somehow winds up dead and most of the cast think that they are responsible. Hijinks ensue (not really, there is not a single jink of any type in the entire movie. This is a "black" comedy in the same way that Las Vegas is not really hot because there is no humidity. Watch this claptrap at your own risk.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Better than "they" would have you believe.
14 March 2023
A terrorism case involving a high casualty truck bomb in a London marketplace results in charges against a Turkish immigrant. His trial, and particularly his defense, would impact national security were it held in the open so the appropriate National Secrets Act is utilized to prevent unnecessary disclosures. The defense therefore is composed of two parts, information which the chief barrister is privy to and which can be used in open court, and evidence which impacts on national security which is revealed to an associated barrister who analyzes it to make arguments to the judge as to what is necessary to reveal to the suspect and his lead counsel. The two attorneys are never to meet or discuss the case. When both sides discover that there are grave questions to be answered the plot thickens. It is thoroughly entertaining to me, a devotee of spy thrillers and government conspiracies but it may not be to everyone's taste. It is a tad slow moving and predictable but in no way deserving of the low ratings given it here on IMDB. Well worth watching, I think it may be a victim of the less than famous cast members. So, no stars in the cast gets no stars in the rating and the film is the victim. It is worth your time.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Raging Bull (1980)
3/10
Arrogant egotism on display throughout
13 March 2023
By most accounts Deniro is given credit for the creation of this colossal display of egotism because of his reading of Jake LaMotta's autobiography. Only an actor could read the life story of such a piece of human garbage and think to himself, "this will make a great movie." For some reason a great talent like Paul Schrader agreed to write the screenplay, for which he should be required to resign from the writer's guild. Jake and Tommy LaMotta grew up in NYC and saw Jake's boxing talent as a way for them both to escape that environment. He became a success but could not get a championship fight without first becoming partners with the local Mafia chief. Eventually Tommy, the manager, makes the agreement that will require Jake to throw a fight before he ultimately gets to fight the champion. If this were the entire plot you might think "why remake "Body and Soul?" It was a classic and seemingly impossible to improve, though someone later failed by trying. But there was much more. We get to explore Jake's sick jealousy and debauchery, Tommy's infidelity and animalistic behaviour and even poor old "Coach" as a psycho Mafia don. There is no arguable reason for making this movie, other than to demonstrate the ridiculous lengths that Robert Deniro will go to to win an Academy Award. Lest you blame some portion of this failure on John Torturro, as you might if you knew he was in it, he is completely innocent. He does not have even one line of dialogue.
0 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Parasite (2019)
3/10
I don't get it.
5 March 2023
A much sterner test of whether or not I am going to like a film than the word of mouth from film aficionados on Reddit or when it is "certified rotten" is how quickly it goes to 40% off at Barnes and Noble. This did so pretty quickly my, against my better judgment I decided to use up my gift card proceeds on this turkey. (Mainly because it is more and more difficult to find a Barnes & Noble that sells DVD's.) This had the potential to have been a very pleasant diversion, reminiscent of the American screwball comedies of the 30's and 40's, when it decided to go over the top and embrace every genre but comedy (and Westerns.) The film concerns two Korean families, the haves and the have-nots The haves are composed of computer exec dad and his faux sophisticated wife and their two children, the teenage daughter, studying English to achieve success on college entrance exams and a junior whiz-kid artist whose works are obviously normal scribbling. In the course of her studies the daughter has the services of a college student who has decided to take a sabbatical and recommends his friend, a non-college educated but English fluent son of the have-nots as his replacement. The son quickly sizes up his new employers and sees room on the job for sis as a art therapy expert who would be just the person to expose junior's genius to the world. Eventually the entire have-not family become "parasites" feeding from the prosperous haves. All vestiges of any comedy then disappear and philosophy seems to take its place. It is not a welcome change. Watch it at your own risk considering the source of all enthusiastic comments that might tend to sway you.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tom Horn (1980)
5/10
May have been McQueen's last
20 February 2023
This film and another were both released in 1980 the year of Steve's untimely death from cancer and he really does look like he might be dying. It was directed by William Wiard who directed over 150 episodes of various television shows as well as television movies. This was his only theatrical release and it was a terrible effort. Poor editing, lousy continuity, lousy script and a plot with so many holes that the real Tom Horn must be turning over in his grave. There is no background offered to the viewer to explain Horn's behavior. The movie is based on the real life exploits of the very real Tom Horn, a 19th century cowboy who happens to catch the eye of a local Wyoming rancher with rustler problems. He offers to pay Tom $200 for every rustler who disappears from the territory, no questions asked. Some time later Tom is confronted with the news that civilization is just over the horizon and the rancher and his buddies cannot bear the shame of having their plot discovered. That really is the plot. The movie gets five stars for choosing to present the beautiful Linda Evans in a completely meaningless part but she is still worth seeing. An embarrassment to all concerned.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Hallmark channel tearjerker
13 February 2023
Other than screaming can't we all get along I really can see absolutely no purpose in this film. What everyone else seems ti interpret as high comedy I am seeing only moderate amusement. As we must know by now the main character is extraordinarily wealthy but as we all know nobody has everything (except for those who do.) The protagonist is wheelchair bound, a quadriplegic or worse, as a result of a hang-gliding accident, which might have been predicted because he risked gliding in bad weather. His wife is almost certainly dead of an unnamed illness (I did not quite understand that part) but that is doubly calamitous since she was the most wonderful woman ever to have lived. He has a spoiled adopted teenage daughter who is involved in a bad relationship. As we meet him he is interviewing for a caretaker/companion and the successful candidate is a Senegalese man who has jumped the line in order get his unemployment form signed so he can leave. The star tells him to return the next morning to get the signed form back, so he leaves, stealing a Faberge egg on the way out. Surprise, surprise when he comes back the next day he has gotten the job. The perks include room and board at a Paris home that Jackie O would have been quite comfortable in. The rest of the movie is so cliche ridden and cloying it is actually insulting to the viewer. Do not waste your time. (And the editing sucks as well.)
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let Him Go (2020)
5/10
Great visuals
13 February 2023
Kevin Costner plays a retired lawman of 30 years experience who is married to Diane Lane. Together they operate a small farm/ranch with their son and his wife. There is apparently very little work involved because when tragedy strikes they are able to pack up and leave for who knows where on a moment's notice. In a tragic accident the son is killed leaving a widow and a young son, who becomes the be-all and end-all for the grandparents. As one might expect the widow remarries and moves into town with her new husband, taking the child with them. As you would never expect unless you are a screenwriter the new husband thinks physically abusing the wife and child is his prerogative and Diane Lane witnesses this firsthand. Not long after she sees this the new family packs up and leaves without notice to the grandparents, Kevin and Diane. What follows is the result of someone who seems to be aching to sell a screenplay. It is horrible, improbable and filled with cliches and coincidences. I give it 5 stars because the acting is not terrible and the scenery is beautiful (presumably Montana and North Dakota.) It sounds like an interesting tale, but don't be fooled; you will regret watching it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My Old Lady (2014)
5/10
morality play
3 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
In Paris, it seems, owners of apartments, unable to keep pace with the cost of living and unable to afford to move, takes part in a "viager." A "viager" is a sale to a prospective buyer in which he pays the seller a certain agreed sum and a monthly stipend, like an annuity, for the rest of the seller's life, thus allowing the seller to maintain and live without worry. A famous one is described in the film where the seller, a very old woman entered such an agreement with a much younger lawyer. Sadly for the lawyer the woman lived to be 123 and the lawyer predeceased her by many, many years, obligating his wife to continue the payments until the old lady's death. In this movie, Kevin Kline inherits a 12 million euro Paris apartment, he thinks, and in the nick of time since he is a three time loser in the marriage game and has no remaining assets. He arrives in Paris, from his home in the U. S., only to find out that he is the victim of such an arrangement and his father has left him no additional funds to make the necessary payments. He must come up with 2400 euros a month or risk losing the apartment. Maggie Smith plays the old lady wonderfully well. Initially, she seems to take pity on him and allows him to stay in the apartment with her until he can make an arrangement to settle the affair without losing his inheritance. We next hear of the tale explaining how the arrangement occurred and it is quite a tawdry one. Maggie and Kevin's father met in Paris in the far distant past and had an affair that never really ended, even after Maggie married, became pregnant, had a daughter and lived to the ripe old age of 92 when we meet her. It is not clear to me if Kevin's father was already married when they met but it is of no importance because he was certainly married and with a son for some 50 plus years as the affair continued. From this point on Maggie's daughter and Kevin whine, ad infinitum. About how they were both raised by unloving parents because all the love was spent either on the lovers or in torment as the spouses of the lovers discover the affair. One can only take so much of that, even though it is well acted by several of my favorites. Ultimately the movie is a failure as there is no defense for the moral deficiencies of the lovers.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Pure dreck
9 January 2023
This movie gets three stars for one reason only and that is because of the absolutely gorgeous photography of an area that, according to the script, is Bali and its environs. If you are looking for a comedy you would do better to go back and listen to some radio transcriptions of the Battling Bickersons. The writing and direction, both credited to someone named Ol Parker, who is also responsible for the Exotic Marigold Hotels, is as bland and uninteresting as might be a 2 hour video of you cousin's wedding in Cancun. Julia Roberts, who once could feign interest in a co-star, or a story, or at least a scene or two is totally unable to do so here, and while it is not politic to comment on anyone's appearance these days, she looks absolutely awful and could not have been photographed from more unflattering angles than in all of her previous movies combined. Clooney fares no better really but at least he still has the Clooney look, if you are partial to it. In a nod to "nepo-babies" Billie Lourde does a turn as the "adventurous" best friend of George and Julia's daughter. They go off together to Bali as a reward for successfully navigating four years of college. Kaitlyn Dever, the daughter, did so well that she gets to be a lawyer as soon as she goes back home. The acting of both is as dull as that of the stars. For some reason I get the impression that Lourde had a few scenes left on the cutting room floor, but who knows. This is a disaster from beginning to end. Apparently, both of the principals were out of work at the same time.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Waste of talent
7 November 2022
By talent, I mean, specifically Suzanne Pleshette, who was as wonderful as humanly possible with the material she had to work with and the same holds true for Don Ameche. All of the other cast members made the effort but there were just no goods to deliver. Hy Averback did not direct another theatrical release for 14 years and that one, Where The Boys Are, was also disappointing and understandably, his last one. If you have said to yourself once or twice in the past, "what a great title" I should probably give it a chance, do not do it. The title was all there was. In an effort to see my warning in print I must add a few more words to it. The basic thrust of the movie seems to indicate some bad feeling between the right wing heirarchy of a small southwestern town and the soldiers at the nearby base, so Brian Keith who has no experience in community relations is brought in to help. There he runs into old comrades, Tony Curtis and Ivan Dixon, who, being Black, must endure a slew of poorly written and mostly tasteless ethnic jokes at his expense. It's not worth the effort.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Now we know what killed Gershwin
26 October 2022
In spite of the many wonderful Gershwin tunes and the performances of the greatest dance team in Hollywood history this is pretty much a washout. It is hard to decide whether to blame Mark Sandrich, directing his fourth Astaire Rogers collaboration or the writing team of Allan Scott, who collaborated on several other A/R efforts, and Ernest Pagano, who was making his debut with the team, but who was given another chance with Carefree. I have to blame Sandrich along with the supremely unfunny Edward Everett Horton and the one trick pony, Eric Blore. This group effort resulted in some of the most unfunny gags to ever be used on screen, not to mention the ridiculous screen name assigned to Astaire (sillier even than Bake Baker from Follow The Fleet.) Astaire's pathetic attempt at a Russian accent and his failure to use more than one Russian word at a time is more evidence against Sandrich. All in all, I would not skip any of the series but this one almost makes me change my position on that.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
There may be an explanation after all
24 September 2022
Thanks to a review by hikergirl_tx I have become aware of an explanation for an ending I previously considered so completely bizarre I thought I had a faulty copy of the DVD. If you have concerns about the ending check out her review. My assessment pretty much coincides with everyone else's. A little short on plot, a horrible pointless title (unless there was some untapped potential audience among poker players, which there isn't since those people never leave the casino,) very little action, pool scenes that are staged to make a few trick shots look like actual expertise etc. The movie is quite dark, with adequate to excellent performances all around, but again - that ending.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Smart People (2008)
9/10
I loved it
26 August 2022
I particularly liked Thomas Hayden Church playing English Professor Dennis Quaid's horribly under achieving adopted brother. I have never previously seen an adoption be so over-emphasized for no apparent reason but there you are. Also, one of my favorite actresses ever is Christine Lahti and she was nearly left on the cutting room floor. However, the characters who remain are all "smart people" and also clever and almost fun. The problem is that they are all emotionally struggling, most because of the untimely death a few years back of Quaid's wife. The struggle is worth observing.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sports Night (1998–2000)
9/10
One of the most irritating shows to watch in the history of television
20 August 2022
There is absolutely no doubt tis is great television but there are so many flaws I just can't give it a ten. The major flaw is that for the sake of realism or some such relatively meaningless goal every scene seems to be accompanied (even inundated) by annoying background telephones ringing. Maybe I am at an age where that particular frequency strikes anger and hosiltiy buttons for me but a teeny, tiny bit of that crap goes a long, long way. Also the laugh track that was added at some point is not the most intrusive by any means, it is just unnecessary. As for the writing, when it comes to maintaing its "message sending" status, it is truly first rate. Unfortunately it is kind of a onetrick pony when it comes to the humorous banter. It is a really good trick but a little more variety and input from some of the lesser characters might have been nice.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Needs a new intro
4 August 2022
The idea that this is Dr. Patterson's current study is a little misleading since the movie itself is 42 years old. I don't really know what to think about it. It is the study of an attempt to teach ASL to a gorilla and at the same time say the words aloud to see if the gorilla can recognize speech and sign language. One thing that struck me was after showing Koko various pieces of jewelry, Koko used sign language to describe a ring as a "finger bracelet." This was a story the doctor told, it was not shown in the film. This well worth seeing. I really cannot comment further on the quality of the film as a documentary or the worthiness of the project as a scientific study.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Somebody sure loves the word "rumpus."
23 July 2022
Not to mention "schmatte." Considering the fact that as writer the Coens are famous for having every word of dialogue set in stone before the shooting begins, maybe the system is no longer working. A beautifully filmed tribute to the film noir with an intricate enough plot to maintain our interest, the only drawback is with the dialogue. Still it is well above the average Hollywood film even if it does not reach "The Big Lebowski"/ "Raising Arizona" level.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hacksaw Ridge (2016)
3/10
The worst war movie ever made
20 July 2022
Three stars only because some of the acting was average or better (that does not apply to you Vince Vaughan.) Other than Vaughan there is no one in this movie that I ever heard of which is actually a selling point, it is nice to see some new faces. Unfortunately I never heard of the writer (there were two) before either and what is really unfortunate is that he and Director Gibson don't seem to be familiar with the idea of plagiarism other than that they seem to be for it. Every cliche in the history of Hollywood seems to have been hauled out and retrofitted for this production. If that sounds like a bad idea, it was.

This is potentially a great story if it is true and knowing Mel Gibson's reputation as a religious zealot I'm inclined to think a lot of it isn't. Assuming it is 100% accurate Gibson sure paints the army as incredibly dense, short-sighted and totally unfamiliar with the constitution all the while trying to force feed the audience with the most incredibly and graphically gruesome video footage intended, I presume, to demonstrate the heroism of the troops. Meanwhile we really don't even get a real idea of what was so darn heroic. I'm glad for Mr. Doss's sake that he did not live to see this movie released (he passed away in 2003.)
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Barry (2018–2023)
3/10
Wow! This is amazingly bad
4 May 2022
I started watching the series because I am getting a free week of HBO and saw the high rating this series has received. A caveat, I have been unable to stomach Bill Hader since he was on SNL. I have seen him in 3 or 4 other movies/tv shows which I liked so he can overcome this instinctive dislike I have for him but he does not make the grade here. The premise of the show seems to be absurd and trite at the same time if that is possible. It so badly wants to be a comedy but it isn't funny and as a drama/thriller it is completely worthless. That pretty much leaves us with nothing. Stephen Root is his usual self. Henry Winkler is as bad as I have ever seen him and that covers a lot of territory. The only praise I can dish out is for Sarah Goldberg who seems to be the love interest for Hader. She is plenty rough in the beginning, though the material she has to work with is probably the real culprit but her performances improve by episode 4 when I stopped watching. In the IMDB trivia section it states that the co-creator, Alec Berg, said that he did not think a show about an assassin would be either funny or well-received. He was half right, it is not funny. I am shocked that it is apparently very well received.
3 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Agonizing
8 April 2022
I was just being generous with the 4-star rating and it only came about because of a fine effort by the bear. George and Gracie should have sued, unless they wrote their own dialogue, in which case Mankiewicz should have sued. Just read the quotes that accompany the info on the first page. No, they are not taken out of context, they are just horrible as is the movie. If you love Carole Lombard you can tell yourself that she was just on a long learning curve and if you want the pleasure of her brilliant efforts you should see what she had to go through to get there.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worst gambling movie ever
17 March 2022
There is nothing wrong with any of the performances in this film. The fault lies in the script which is verging on nonsensical. Also, the casino where the majority of the gambling takes place looks like a large ballroom. It is the first casino I have ever seen (and I worked in nearly 20) with a plain brown (dark beige) carpet. Here is the story in a nutshell. Phillip Seymour Hoffman works in a bank in Canada where everyone is dazzled by his work ethic and performance to the point where he becomes responsible for multi-million dollar accounts. Even in Canadian dollars that is a little far fetched. His girl friend/doormat is Minnie Driver who must have a reason for being with him but I have no idea what it is from watching the movie. Phil has a secret. He has what the whole world would call a gambling problem. He goes to the track and never seems to win (though we never see him there), he makes sports bets like $1000 on all the home teams in the National league and $1000 on all the favorites in the American League, bets you might only make if starring in Brewster's Millions instead of this turkey. I don't want to say any more for fear of revealing a plot point and since I don't have any idea what that term means in regard to this movie, silence is golden. Watch at your own risk or maybe if you are doing a doctoral dissertation on the films of PSH.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rescue Me (2004–2011)
5/10
For high school boys.
24 February 2022
Dennis Leary was already known for stealing jokes before this series started so this is probably a better medium for him to do that. The first season had some originality, some decent dialog, some amusing story lines and a real and deserved empathy for the fire fighters who served during and after 9/11. One thing I don't get is the number of Cadillacs driven by the characters on the show who are all struggling to make ends meet while living in NYC. I also don't understand why all of the characters in the show have repeated sexual encounters while never removing any undergarments. In any case here is the plot. Angry bitter firefighting hero and his fellow crew members spend week after week fighting fires and each other, complaining about their pay, cheating on their wives and significant others and then we rinse and repeat for 7 seasons. They really should have stopped after season one.
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Offers they could not refuse
1 December 2021
The only possible explanation for the appearance of all the talented people, not you Seth, in this movie is that they were offered fees far in excess of their regular demands. Seth McFarlane has zero acting skills though he does have the ability to write a few good jokes. Ribisi is completely miscast. Neeson is adequate but really has very little to do. Likewise with Charlize Theron. Seyfried has no comedic skills whatsoever. However, the one actor who should be humiliated to have made the choice to appear in this mess is Neil Patrick Harris who should have had a little more self respect. His part is awful. Most of the blame for this train wreck goes to Mac Farlane who also directed the movie. So as writer, director and star he should certainly be prepared for that call from Harvard Lampoon. He is a triple threat of incompetence.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed