Change Your Image
chupo50
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Pervert: Hunting the Strip Search Caller (2022)
Shame on the big fast food chains, shame on the attorny
This documentary contains disturbing sexual assualt details, viewer discretion advised.
It's a bit too long; some messages are repeated and in some cases the pace is a bit too slow. But it contains an important message. Throughout 10 years, fast food restaurants across the USA had received prank calls from a man posting as a police officer and demanded a strip search on a young female employee. In at least one case there was a male employee who was stripped searched. What is unbelievable is the police officers finally caught the guy, David Steward, with solid evidence, but he hired a shameless big-shot lawyer who had the face to be interviewed in the documentary, and the case was dropped. A girl who was stripped searched sued Taco Bell for not warning the employees but was character-attacked by the company and the judge.
Of course, Louise Ogborn was the only one sued and got her justice. But how about other voiceless victims?
I see so much shameless injustice.
American Nightmare (2024)
INJUSTICE - You MUST watch it
If anyone asks you why we should defund the police, show them this story. These corrupt cops rotten to the core, and the so-called FBI agents didn't do their job even a bit, just picked the easy targets and shamed them. The victim-blaming and prejudice was simply unbelievable. The victims in this case luckily got their names cleaned, but imagine how many of the victims out there have been victimized again and again?
The sergeant Misty Carausu, on the other hand, is a HERO. I guess because she's a woman, and therefore understands the deep sexism and has the courage and persistence to FIGHT it. Her name MUST be remembered.
This doc should be mandatory to everyone.
Scrubs (2001)
An interesting show with flaws I have a hard time to ignore
This show's got some good reviews, but I don't see it for the most part. Don't get me wrong: it's not really a "horrible" show, and I like it somehow, but I do have some different opinions.
I always think: if I had watched Scrubs before watching House, would my review be different?
Scrubs started not bad. I enjoyed the witty jokes, the struggles (but funny) of the protagonist, the friendships. Some are a bit too silly, but ok. I also saw some very touching scenes about life and death and it moved me.
But then after a season or two, the silly, exaggerated jokes morph into absurdity. Cox and the Janitor are getting more and more abusive without solid reasons, and Cox's rants are getting longer and more boring. The serious topics pretty much disappear; even when they occasionally show up, they're gone way before our emotions can sink in. The protagonist is, in my opinion, reduced to almost a masochist. Nearly all the witty funny jokes are replaced by bizarre slapsticks. In about season 6 and 7, I almost couldn't bring myself to keep further. It was like being with a friend who insisted on being "funny," who is incapable of anything serious no matter how hard you try. It became very, very annoying.
But on the other hand, I kept on thinking I shouldn't be so critical on this show. This show is never intended to be intellectual and serious; it's a funny, no brainer that talks about the relationship dynamics in a hospital. If I had watched it without expecting anything serious, maybe I could have enjoyed it more. Besides, I like the actors and their acting; I think they did quite well. Zach might be a bit too feminine when he's acting silly, but that's his style. Sam did a great job as Ted, the abused lawyer (he passed away in 2020, may he rest in peace, he seemed to be a nice person), I felt I could relate to him. My fav characters, besides Ted, are Elliot, Jordan, and probably Carla; but pretty much the whole cast is good. If the slapsticks weren't so many, I'd like JD and Turk too.
I think my being too harsh on this show comes from (unfairly, I know) me constantly comparing it to House (House ruins everything for me). To me, House has set up a standard too high for other medical shows: it has a tremendous amount of information and knowledge, serious discussions about medical issues, sickness, life and death, addiction, pain, and still a great amount of humor. I believe that House (as a show) kills fewer patients than Scrubs, yet it carries way, way more weight, elicits more emotions, and provokes significantly more thoughts. By the way, in 2020, Insider.com has experts/doctors rated the accuracy of some medical shows: Scrubs got 8 out of 10, and House is 9.5. A 1.5 difference isn't much; 8 is quite a good number. But I laughed: of course Scrubs got a high score: the medical info in this show is, at least comparing to House, barely any. If you don't need to provide a lot of info, it shouldn't be too hard to be accurate. That's NOT what Scrubs is about anyway.
But here's a question: can a show be funny AND at the same time explore serious topics? Can it make you laugh but also feel the heaviness? Well, we all have different opinions, but for me, Mom is a great example. It's more similar to Scrubs in terms of "funniness," yet at the same time it's about deadly addiction and you can feel it. From this perspective, Scrubs is indeed a bit disappointing.
Things took a small turn when I watched season 8. Scrubs switched to ABC in seasons 8 and 9, and season 8 to me is a tiny pleasant surprise cause the writing is better. The silly slapsticks are reduced, some serious discussions come back, and the finale leaves you some sad yet fulfilling feeling.
Screenrant.com published in 2021 "Scrubs: 10 Major Flaws Of The Show That Fans Chose To Ignore," including "One-Dimensional Side Characters," "Flanderization Of The Characters," and "Mansplaining" I can't agree more. They make the characters (e.g., the janitor, Todd, Cox) barely likable. Especially Cox: it's okay to make a character a jerk-it's necessary and it makes the show fun, but sometimes you might want to tone it down and/or give it a good reason, otherwise you just make him a sadist and the people at the receiving end masochists.
Finally, many people state season 9 is a huge mistake that deserves low ratings. Personally, however, I don't see a huge difference between season 9 and the previous seasons. I guess people don't like this season mainly because they're missing some old characters.
House M.D. (2004)
My all-time fav show
I just love this show, and Hugh Laurie is exceptional. House's pretty much my fav TV character. I love the original cast the most: Cameron (Jennifer Morrison), Chase (Jesse Spencer), Foreman (Omar Epps). This show is, to me, very intellectual, with a right amount of humor, darkness, and weight (for example, you see the life and death situation and struggle). Very, very thought-provoking.
It's not without flaws: sometimes House's behaviors are too unrealistic, they're improper and won't likely happen in real life. Still, it's not way too much and it doesn't make the show less interesting.
I've re-watched this show so many times. The problem is: after watching House, I find myself comparing and criticizing other shows I've watched (e.g., Scrubs--it's getting painful to watch, Grey's Anatomy--I tried twice but just couldn't go beyond the first episode). House is just a unique show not like others. Just awesome.
Arrested Development (2003)
Great for the 1st 3 seasons
Just want to say this was a great show--for the first 3 seasons. Then it goes downhill in my opinion. The narration becomes too much (good stories SHOW, don't TELL), and the "villain" characters, who are kind of cute in the first 3 seasons, become more and more annoying.
Humans (2015)
Worth it
Spoiler alert:
First of all, I find this show creative and interesting, and I did binge-watch it to the end. I think it's worth it and will recommend to everyone. It also rekindles my interest in AI and makes me ponder about how the future of AL and us together might pan out.
I'll first comment on something I find "unrealistic" or maybe a bit "strange" about this show. They're, of course, totally my personal opinions; you might not find them to be problems and that's perfectly fine.
The first thing that surprised me was: the synths bleed-and they seem to need a lot of their blue blood. When Niska visits Dr. George Millican, the synth that's assigned to him right away knows she's not human: "I can detect no cardiac or respiratory activity." That tells us one thing: these synths do NOT have hearts or lungs. If that's the case, what do they need blood for? Lubrication? Maybe their hearts and lungs emit so little energy that can't be detected, but I seriously doubt that's possible. Plus, synths need to charge, that strongly implies the energy is stored in a battery. In that case, no blood or any liquid is needed. I know some might say this is nitpicking, maybe they're right. I just find this strange.
Second, again, some might find this to be nitpicking: the charging method. We still have a very, very long way to create an AI robot like these synths (but I think we'll eventually get there, assuming we don't destroy ourselves first), so by the time we have synths, our technology must be very, very advanced. I do NOT believe they still need to use a cord, such an inconvenient method, for charging; maybe they shouldn't even need a charging station. Wireless charging (we have that now already for crying out loud) or even solar panel charging on their bodies should be possible.
But the biggest issue that makes the storyline unrealistic (but still entertaining) is how many of synths are used in simple labors such as mining and factories. We know synths are expensive-when Joe buys Anita, his wife Laura asks: "How can we afford it?" Joe replies: "Special offer; over 5 years, it's less than we pay for a car." Keep in mind Laura is a LAWYER, and Joe is some manager before he is fired. Now, such expensive robots are used in cheap labor jobs like mining or factory assembling lines? It's like buying 100 Benz cars just to assemble products in a factory. Who in the right mind will do that? Maybe some might think: "Anita is the expensive one, the others are cheap." But think about this: to be able to become "conscience," the synths must have a computer brain big and quick enough to process all the information, and I'll bet it ain't cheap. Also, after Day Zero, these synths can feel pain. In order to create a robot that feels pain, you can't just change the program; you need hardware like sensors all over the bodies. Obviously before the Day Zero, they're at least already equipped with all these sensors, and again that must cost you. Plus, remember Hestor? She's a factory worker, but then she can have sex with Leo, that means they're also equipped with mature sex organs! Why do factory machines need sex organs!?
In the story, synths taking away people's jobs, that actually has already happened: automation has been taking away many laborers' jobs. But they're just automatic machines, not these smart and sexy AI robots. No boss will buy 100 Benz machines just to assemble the lines or dig out coal.
But the conflicts between synths and humans are a good metaphor of racial conflicts in our societies. See how Mia is persecuted when she lives in a rented flat? That definitely reminds me of how certain communities shun away and even threaten minorities/immigrants. Is the plot that Karen is brutally killed by a mob just because they realize she's a synth realistic? Well, probably not, but maybe not as so far away from the truth as we might think.
Also, I like how the show portrays all the different characters: they all have strong personalities, their heartbreaks, their strengths. The storyline is grasping your attention and a lot of conflicts and twists, and you find yourself care for them.
There're two scenes I found not convincing enough. First, Karen is asked by other four to connect together to complete the code. Karen in the beginning purposely corrupts the process, but after their pleads she has a change of heart. The change is just like that, she suddenly smiles and things are done. It's just too forced and I'm not convinced at all. The second scene is when Leo is beaten by the evil synth Anatole, the synth loyal to Anatole, Stanley, changes his heart and awakens Max to kill Anatole. I'm not convinced; I don't see enough reason to compel Stanley to change just like that. He's loyal to Anatole, he's ready to kill everyone in a conference room, that means he's no stranger to violence. He shouldn't have changed that quickly like a switch.
Killing off Mia is probably too risky; Gemma said it was a deliberated decision that fits her profile, and I kind of agree that's a great twist. But Mia is kind of the heart of this show, and I think killing off her might have at least in some part contributed to the cancellation of this show...?
Finally, one thing I'm not sure I understand: why this super AI, V, doesn't interfere and help all the synths sooner? It just says "synths shall endure, just not in the form you think." That's strange and ambiguous to say the least. It's very obvious this V is the ultimate power-nothing will be able to stop it; humans are no match. Then what is it waiting for? That hybrid kid of Leo and Mattie? But guess that's for us to find out in season 4-which, unfortunately, isn't happening.
Talking about V, I think if Stephen Hawking is right, that if a war between humans and AI becomes reality in the future, it will NOT be like what this show depicts: humans persecute smart but poor AI robots. Instead, it'll be like this V vs. humans-and humans likely will NOT have a chance. The war probably will end in just a few days. It has a total domination of internet and power, no firewall can stop it cause it IS the firewall. It simply can do whatever it wants on every aspect and detail in our lives, and we can NOT do anything about it.
Unless there're different AI's rise and start competing with each other, like another exceptional show, Person of Interest, depicts. The plot of that show is way more likely to happen in real life; that will be another serious topic to discuss.
The Mentalist (2008)
An enjoyable ride
I really like this show. Maybe not as much as my all time fav, House, but not too far from it. And it also rekindles my interest in forensic psychology, profiling, and Sherlock Holmes.
There're quite a few things I like about this show: the characters, the stories, and the most important of all, Patrick Jane's mentalism. I think they successfully show people the mentalism in a somewhat realistic way-though of course, we still know such "perfect" mentalism probably doesn't exist in real life. And I kind of like Simon Baker's demeanor, he makes his character quite interesting to watch: arrogant, observant, a little impulsive, but caring when it's important. Except for some reason, I feel that Simon seems to have a hard time acting he's in physical pain: there're at least two scenes he's electrified by bad people, and both his acting isn't convincing to me. Though I guess it's just a small thing. I like the combination of the five: Jane, Lisbon, Cho, Rigsby, Van Pelt. When they change the cast I'm a bit disappointed, but then the new people gradually gain your likes.
There're some other good things I'd like to point out. It seems the show runners have done some research to make the show indeed closer to facts/science:
1. The method of loci. In the show, Jane keeps on teaching people about his memory technique; he says something about imaging a palace and then associate things you want to remember with it. This is in fact one of the mnemonics (a system/technique for helping memory) called loci (rhythm with bowtie). And Jane's description is correct; one can in fact watch the show and learn a bit about this technique to help themselves. When I was in college, I had a professor who would demonstrate this in the beginning of the semester: in a class of like 30, she'd ask each one to give her a random word, then after a minute or two, she could recite these words in the correct order, or even in reverse. Her technique was similar to loci.
2. Memory retrieval: we all know how unreliable an eye witness's testimony can be. The line-up method is very often biased and misleading. In the show, when Jane wants to help a witness recall something, he'll help him/her to first reconstruct the scene: imagine you are back to the place, it's dark, you see the street and the shops around you, you hear the noise and smell the food... then gradually lead to the main question; for example, what does the man look like? This is a way better and effective way of getting the correct memories, according to research.
3. More than once, Jane says (words to the effect): "If you want people to like you, you ask something from them; even a small thing will do..." this is because of something called cognitive dissonance: people will have to justify their effort of helping you.
4. Microexpressions: this is based on the research by Paul Ekman. His research suggests that when people lie, they have some extremely small and quick expressions that can't escape from a trained eye. Though some other researchers cast doubt. I think in general this is truce, but it still might vary from individual to individual.
These things are all based on scientific psychology research, I'm quite impressed. But of course, sometimes they mess up a bit by quoting some untrue pop psych, for example: "When your eyes are looking at the upper left/right you're lying..." there's absolutely NO scientific evidence about it. But in general, I think the show runners do their homework.
There're some minor "criticisms" if you will; just my personal opinions.
1. The plot about Red John. A show MUST have conflicts, a bad guy, a nemesis, otherwise no one will find it interesting and appealing. Hence the Red John. The problem is: this Red John plot might have lasted too long-it isn't solved until season 6. First, I see some complain about feeling it to be dragging. And second, this might have created a big catharsis effect for people: "Oh finally, problem solved, mission accomplished"-and stop watching the show. I imagine: if this Red John plot is solved in season 2 or 3 the most, it might be much easier to introduce some other conflicts/nemesis, and the show might have more than 6.5 seasons (7th season has only 13 episodes).
2. My biggest criticism of the show: Red John himself. This is a good villain and I'm cool with it, and I'm absolutely NOT saying I don't like it. But this character isn't realistic in the show based on two reasons:
First, there's no legit "purpose" or "motive" for the killing, and for so many people to join in the organization. Yes, we see a lot of serial killers, but the motives of the killings are personal-"all women are b** and deserve to be r** and killed," "this world is there to get me and I have to fight." If it's personal, it's extremely difficult to use that to motivate any other "normal" people. Therefore, it's very unlikely that this Red John can lead a huge secret wide-spread organization doing all the killings. Plus, too many killings (in many cases, meaningless: just because that person p** the Red John off) only draw more attention, that actually is very stupid. What's more likely to happen is the Red John is either a huge drug lord, human trafficker, white-collar criminal, or a corrupt politician. It involves MONEY and/or POWER-now they're the powerful motives. All the killings are for clearing up the path to money and power. Another problem: it turns out this powerful evil person is just a sheriff? A sheriff is very unlikely to have such power and resources; if he has such power and resources he probably won't be willing to stay as a sheriff. It might not be impossible, but extremely, extremely unlikely in my opinion.
Second, with so many people in this evil and huge organization and so many terrifying killings, and no one knows who Red John is? That's like believing the landing on the moon is in fact staged. The problem of this staged moon-landing conspiracy is: if that were true, you'd have to have at least 411,000 people sworn to secrecy! The case like Edward Snowden is a proof that such huge "secret" simply can't be a secret because of the big number of people involved. Think about how difficult it is to have a secret birthday party, which involves like 15-20 people? This idea is just not practical.
But of course, who cares about being practical? We like the thrill.
3. Just a little question: I feel that Jane in the show sometimes has a theory about what happens before he has all the data. Sherlock Holmes (thus Conan Doyle) says: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
4. Finally, sometimes there're some unrealistic situations or loopholes. For example, at the very last episode, the evil man runs away from an explosion and tries to kill Jane. Really? If he suffers from such extensive burn, there's no way he can walk, not to mention about killing.
These points mentioned above are, of course, just my 2 cents.
But I know that this show is still enjoyable, we're willing to look past some minor flaws. I recommend it.
Dead Like Me (2003)
Could have been much better
I know it seems many like this show; if you like it, obviously I'm just stating my views, maybe I just have wrong expectations or a strange taste. But in my opinion, this show could have been so much better.
Obviously, spoiler alert.
First of all, I love the idea of the show: what a great new perspective of death. And I like the actors, I think they all did a good job. It's sad that Ellen Muth and Laura Harris seem to be out of the show business, I hope it's temporary, I'd like to see more of them. That's why I still finished the whole two seasons.
In an interview, the show's original creator, Bryan Fuller, explained that the network Showtime cancelled the show mostly due to bad storytelling. I agree. To me, except some episodes, most of them are just like "this and this happen, end of story," many details are not going anywhere instead of moving the plotline ahead. In a story, every detail must have its purpose, either to drive the story or to show the characters' personality, but I see too many conversations or scenes have no reason to be there. Actually, there seems to be no plotline, they just reap souls and that's it. No conflict, no "what's going to happen? Will they/won't they?" I honestly fell asleep in some episodes.
A bigger problem I have is I fail to see the motives of the characters' behaviors, and therefore it's very hard for me to care about them or relate to them, only find them annoying. For example, Mason is impulsive, selfish, and airhead. It can be fun to have a character like that, but if we know what happen to him when he is alive, if we know what makes him that way, we'll have more understanding and sympathy. But his life (and actually, most of the main characters' lives) is nearly blank; we only know he dies of a stupid death and nothing else. Now I only find him annoying and stupid. Rube seems to have a dark and sad past, but the revelation of his life is way too show, too limited, and fragmental. How about Roxy? She's murdered by her friend, and that's it; it could have developed into a great subplot. When Mason learns that Daisy's last word is "why nobody loves me?" I thought this is such a great line! But that's the end of it, no further development, no further conflict.
A glimpse of a good plot is Ray the bad guy. He charms Daisy, obviously only using her, but she can't see that (or doesn't want to), and Mason is trying hard to help her. NOW that's the conflict! But it ends so abruptly and easy. Ray's troll is easily killed by George-which doesn't make sense: Daisy and Mason have worked way longer than George, but they seem to have limited knowledge of that troll than George? And George is the one kills it without any problem? I'm not saying George can't kill it, but at least show us some fighting and struggle, show us George's fear and courage to overcome it!
The subplot of Reggie and her parents' divorce isn't quite appealing either, I thought they should have shown more about Reggie's reasons of struggle instead of just showing her as a brat. But that might be just me.
And I know it's a "comedy," but many "deaths" in the show are just silly and impossible, more like slapsticks, which isn't actually the tone of the show.
Finally, I have a problem with way too many George's narration. Narration is fine, but too many makes me feel I'm reading someone's account of bio instead of a story. Why not just show us? If George is learning a lesson, don't tell us, show us the change of her behavior or conversation!
All I can say is: it seems the show's cancellation after only 2 seasons has a reason. In fact, I'm a bit surprised it has a season 2; quite a few good shows got canceled after only 1 season.
That said, if there's a season 3 (probably not gonna happen), I probably will watch it and hope it gets better. It's such a great idea, and it actually makes you think about life and death.