Change Your Image
tomasetti
Reviews
Dana White's Contender Series: Week 10 (2022)
Bo Nickal
This is the episode that the world was introduced to Bo Nickal. I'm just putting this information here now so that when years go by, we can all look back and see.
I don't know why my review needs to be longer, so I'm just going to type ad naseum. Dana White looks like a boiled hot dog. I think Disney and ESPN+ should really band together and pay their fighters 10,000$ more each minimum. Every single fighter, 10k more each fight across the board, easiest decision ever.
A ton of free press, no longer the bad guy, maybe the anti-trust lawsuit simmers down a little bit, fighters who are making the 10k minimum have their salary doubled. All at a pittance of the bottom line.
Win/Win/win/win/win?
Ryan.
Pretend Time (2010)
Pretty bad
I am one of those people that put on Comedy Central first every time I turn on my TV. I enjoy pretty much everything that's aired, with a few exceptions. This is one of them.
The skits seem to be rough drafts for ideas that could be funny if properly written acted or directed, and that's being nice about it. Other skits seem to be rough drafts for ideas that could never be funny regardless.
I do not consider myself above toilet humor, but this show seems to contain some sort of childish humor in every laugh.
Skit shows are generally failures, Dave Chapelle had a really nice format with some sort of a standup performance, introducing us to the skits and giving us a backstory behind them sometimes either before or after. And the skits had a laugh track as a result, in the style of Saturday night live.
The combination of no laugh track to tell us when to laugh, combined with the fact that it's really not that funny add up to an awkward viewing experience. As with anything else, it gets more awkward with more people watching.
The Great Buck Howard (2008)
Moral of the story
I was forever trying to find what this movie is trying to say. It's a quirky movie, and a lot of the reviewers on this site were indeed puzzled by it. I read a lot of "I liked it, but I don't understand why they made this movie.." About halfway through the movie, during one of his finale's (when he has the audience hide his money and then finds it), I had an epiphany about what this movie was trying to say.
You see, throughout the movie, Buck Howard really does "love this town". In fact, when Troy flat out calls him facetious, Buck backs up that famous one liner with the hard truth. That he really does love the small towns, the small town shows and the small town people that attend them. He was out of place in Vegas. And that's why he couldn't find the money during that scene.
Perhaps I'm stepping ahead of myself, the moral of the story is this. Do what you love, and the money will come. And funny enough, I just read a book on this topic by the editor of Wired magazine called "Free", which basically explains third party revenue streams and all of the various ways of making money out of our relatively new free-to-use business model. So it's as true today as it ever was.
Do what you love, and the money will find you. So when he was in Vegas, receiving advice from people on how to change his show, to cut out what the focus groups didn't like, etc, he kind of lost the thrill of the show, the fun of it all. And so he was unable to find his money.
At the end of the movie, it centers around Troy being slightly bothered by how Buck is able to perform this trick over 5000 times successfully, but has this one show in Vegas where he is unable to do it, and leaves Vegas for good. It just drills the point home even more. In fact, I believe at some point in the movie, Buck Howard says exactly the advice that I realized he was giving all along - do what you love and the money will find you! I hope someone found this review to be insightful in a way that other reviews weren't. Most reviews broke down the movie by explaining who is in it and for how many scenes they made a cameo but in general missed this entire message Ryan
Angels & Demons (2009)
Agree with comments
I read many of the comments on this website before posting my own. Needless to say, many of the comments were extremely accurate. Many have read all or some of Dan Brown's work, and are able to sequence the book and the movie in it's entirety.
I have none of that, I only have one observation, technical in nature. While I am a fan of the willing suspense of disbelief, I am a bigger fan of logic. And when movies omit technology (either because of the time period, or despite it), I am more at ease. When films embrace technology, there are always one of two outcomes. They either do it correctly or incorrectly. This movie does it incorrectly, and to the peril of the entire main plot!!! When Hasassin, the villain, steals a wireless camera and moves it more than 2 miles away, it can only be one type of wireless camera. One that uses CMDA, TDMA, GSM or some other standard broadband technology. It would also need to broadcast pretty strongly (about as strong as a common cellphone). Therefore, the signal could then be traced and the ENTIRE PLOT CAN BE AVOIDED. Think about that.
We're talking about the Vatican, the catholic church. They have more money and access to the type of security that belongs in the movies. They can't trace a simple TDMA signal? They have to hire an archnemesis in Robert Langdon and then have him solve 16th century puzzles on a running stopwatch? PLEASE I don't know if this stolen wireless camera was as much part of the plot in the book as it is in the movie, where they are trying to cut power to parts of the city to see when the camera loses light etc, but if it is, I couldn't read the book either. Dan Brown, either embrace technology in your books (and their very simple concepts) or start writing books set in medieval times.
I am willing to suspend my disbelief and believe that there is a heaven in the sky, and that Moses can part the Red Sea, but I will simply not believe the Vatican cannot trace a cellphone signal in the year 2008.
Eagle Eye (2008)
Compilation of reviews
Eagle Eye has been so carefully emasculated of all political sensibilities that it is impossible to tell if it is a authoritarian critique of liberalism or a liberal critique of authoritarianism or possibly both at the same time. You can read it either way. It's so cynical that you have to kind of admire it.
Needless to say the plan doesn't work and eventually ARIA gets killed by being stabbed in her metaphorical computer face.
The entire premise behind the hero being recruited as a pawn in the above-mentioned super computer's nefarious plot is that the hero has an identical twin brother who worked with said computer, realised what it was up to, and used some sort of voice override command. Thus the hero is now needed to come in and unlock the voice override.
Problem is, near as I can tell the voice override has the function of overriding exactly nothing. Every single phenomenal controlling trick the computer pulls, including setting up the entire elaborate assassination plot, takes place BEFORE the lock is removed.
You know how to save the world from a computer taking over? Install Windows Live Messenger on it. BOOM! pwned.
Rails & Ties (2007)
only one issue
The movie was very heart wrenching. It is all very real for everyone in the audience, thanks to Patricia Hayden's superb portrayal of a woman ready to give up the fight.
The only issue I had with the movie lies in the boy who lost his mother to suicide - he goes on to blame the train conductor! Violent fits of rage both directly after the accident, and midway through the movie when he seeks homage. The sons knows as soon as his mother parks her car on the tracks what she is trying to do. He tries in vein to pull her from the car. The train is already coming too fast - however he feels that it's not basic physics, rather someones fault.
Now, it's possible that the boy - after losing his mother - is looking to blame someone - anyone - for this tradegy. That is a common coping mechanism. However there's no way that the coping mechanism kicks in minutes after the accident. When you see the kid in the first 10 minutes of the movie being forcibly restrained by police officers trying to go-for-throat on the conductor, you can't help but to begin to begin to dislike the child (not totally).
However, whatever redeeming qualities there are in the boy go out the window when he rejects hospitality from what looks like a temporary foster home. He does not smoothly make the transition from poor kid losing his mom to adopted child of this new couple. He risks almost becoming a protagonist within the first 20 minutes of the movie.
I believe the writers could have created another vehicle for the boy to intrude himself into the train conductor's life other than blind rage towards a man who was just doing his job. Or, if they kept that vehicle, more should have been done in the way of exploring the boy's grief. Either way, cut out the scenes that force the audience into either disliking the boy or thinking there's something perhaps mentally awry with him.
6 out of 10 stars