Reviews

In the past year, Netflix has shifted gears, abandoning the pursuit of quality in favor of becoming a mere content aggregator. Nowhere is this more evident than in their treatment of Black Stories-shallow, tokenistic offerings that scream, "Here's something we think the community will tolerate," devoid of any genuine effort to deliver quality entertainment.

Take, for instance, their recent Shirley Chisholm Movie debacle. It looked as though they threw spare change at it and managed to get everything about Chisholm wrong.

Now Good Times. This insulting portrayal, steeped in old stereotypes, is just the tip of the iceberg. And I highly doubt this poorly executed, offensive mess will win them any new audience.

Netflix originals have become increasingly unbearable. From the disaster that was the Zack Snyder debacle to the mishandling of "3 Body Problem," it's evident that Netflix's enthusiasm for new creators and bold ideas has waned, replaced by tired clichés and a race to the bottom.

We may be witnessing the twilight of the streaming golden age, but I never imagined quality would plummet to such depths in a business model reliant on subscriber retention.

This reality TV show following Jerrod C, falls flat due to the comic's self-serving self-awareness. Instead of genuine moments, viewers endure calculated performances and manufactured pauses and a weird structure. Comedians' narcissism detracts from authenticity, leaving audiences disconnected. The balance between authenticity and entertainment is crucial. When comics prioritize ego over connection, the result is a hollow spectacle, devoid of genuine emotion. Authenticity is key; without it, the show and its subject lose its charm, leaving viewers longing for a truth that is not coming, because the self-servingly self-aware are never that fun to be around.

While some viewers may find resonance in the portrayal presented in this Wikipedia film entry, those acquainted with Shirley Chisholm's enduring legacy are likely to encounter profound disappointment. Regrettably, the entry is saturated with inaccuracies and fabrications regarding her life, overlooking ample opportunities to craft a genuine and compelling narrative through thorough research. Rather than delving into the profound motivations propelling her historic presidential bid, the entry trivializes her aspirations, thereby diminishing the gravity of her candidacy. This lack of diligence epitomizes the film's overall negligence, as the narrative conveniently conforms to the filmmaker's biases instead of faithfully capturing Chisholm's intricate character.

Of particular concern is the glaring omission of pivotal figures from Chisholm's life, such as her real-life youth leader, a significant Black influencer whose impact reverberates through history. Instead, the film substitutes these essential individuals with lesser characters, erasing the crucial contributions of Black Youth and Women who spearheaded her campaign, thus failing to honor her profound influence on American politics. Furthermore, the film consistently chooses the path of least resistance, neglecting to explore one of the central aims of her campaign, and opting for bland storytelling over the dynamic elements of Chisholm's life. This disregard for her memory and the countless individuals inspired by her groundbreaking spirit constitutes a disservice to her legacy.

Mr. Ridley has always done his best work, when others rewrite him. He famously denied Steve McQueen, a writing credit for 12 Years A Slave, even though that film was heavily rewritten, the same with Three Kings.

The screenplay to this film shows off Mr. Ridley's weaknesses, his lack of narrative drive, his inability to capture the female voice, and making them props for men in the film.

But the central conceit of the film is rather good, maybe because it is based on someone else's idea, Robert Silverberg's 1966 Needle In A Timestack, is still central to the film's set up, including the women who feel like they belong in 1966.

Everything is directed to look like a Macy's commercial from 2014. So that there is this sort of bland, instagram photos instead of cinematography style to it, which takes away from the scope of a story that could have been exceptionally cinematic.

There is such a great idea here though, particularly if everyone has the ability to travel and fix mistakes, and the women had been given agency over this once it was discovered, an ultimate game of cat and mouse and upmanship could have taken place. Instead we get the most boring version of this idea. If only someone had done a rewrite.

Mr. Ridley has several directing projects coming up including a biopic on Shirley Chisholm, starring Regina King, one would hope that the screenwriter for that is at least, a woman, or someone who can write one.

I have never felt so compelled to tell people to stay away from a film, a filmmaker and actors more than this film, this filmmaker and these actors. (so much so that I actually signed up for an IMDb account!)

Not only are they wasting any audience's time. But you can feel the absolute waste of time they all must have experienced. After all, I only lost about an hour and a half of my time. A loss I deeply regret, but I can only imagine that the writers, producers, director and actors have lost much more time and have done irreparable damage to their reputations. The only good thing I can say is that actor playing Agent Quincannon reminds me of 70's porn actor Scott Noll, unfortunately he seems to come from the same deer in the headlights school of acting porn actors do.

The sad thing is that the set up, the idea behind the film is not half bad. It's a little like Hard Candy meets L.I.E. (which this "screenwriter/producer" also created. He seems to be plagiarizing himself and doing some self-therapy all at once.)

The execution however is so laughably amateurish that at every aspect from beginning to end you are slack-jawed at how anyone involved in the production didn't just walk away. That the actors had to deliver such leaden lines is one thing, but if you are gonna have such a terrible script then at least the producers should have insisted in casting better actors. Or perhaps this was a case of producers scraping the bottom of the barrel as no self-respecting actor would ever take on a role if they actually bothered to read the script.

Did I watch the entire thing? Yes,I unfortunately did. Did I feel my time was wasted, no doubt. So why didn't I walk away? Because I expected at least something to happen to elevate it to camp status. That moment unfortunately never came, which leads me to believe everyone involved actually thought they were making something good.