tiffanie_says_stay_in_your_lane Reviews

GoldenEye (1995)

I know I won't garner much of a consensus on this, but GoldenEye is the best Bond movie of the 20th century!!!!

[10/10 · 30 May 2024]

Not only was this the coolest James Bond movie, but it was hands down THE best action movie of the 1990s!!! I know this installment is not exactly the most popular with Bond fans, but I suppose I like it so much because I'll watch pretty much anything British, and it helps that I love espionage films. I'm also a woman, so I found this Bond film to be the most fun to watch. It didn't feel like it was overly masculine. And if I am being totally honest, I have not watched all of the Bond movies, nor do I intend to. I've watched Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker. Every actor who played Bond started out amazing, but after 4 or 5 films they no longer had the appearance of a swashbuckling spy. By Diamonds Are Forever Sean Connery looked like an old man, despite only being 41 (and then he came back to do Never Say Never in 1983, even after he said he was tired of playing James Bond). Roger Moore also began to show visible signs of aging in A View to a Kill. I haven't seen any of Timothy Dalton's or Daniel Craig's Bond films. The latter didn't even fit the Bond image, and the former... I don't see what the big deal is about him. Then again, I'm examining the franchise from a woman's perspective. Plus I'm straight, so it's not like I watch the Bond movies just to look at the female characters.

I think it's really cool I grew up during the Pierce Brosnan era of James Bond (I was 2 years old when this movie came out). I feel weird for saying Goldfinger was my favorite. Although the action was pretty decent for a movie that was made during the mid 1960s, there were so many elements of toxic masculinity. Pierce Brosnan gave a stellar performance as James Bond, and he was charming, if not more so, than Sean Connery. He was also insanely attractive. I did enjoy Goldfinger (with the exception of a couple of scenes), but after doing research on Sean Connery, I don't care for him all that much. Considering he thought it was acceptable for a man to strike women - which was no different than how he was in the Bond movies - that reduced the appeal for me, thus making it hard to like him as a person, much less as an actor. All of the actors and actresses in GoldenEye were brilliant. Sean Bean was cast perfectly as Alec Trevelyan. If you haven't already seen this film then you are seriously missing out!

Moonraker (1979)

I really don't understand the negativity

[10/10 · 30 May 2024]

I love Roger Moore. Perhaps so much to the point that I'm slightly biased, because this movie is absurd and I still loved it. If anyone else was playing the lead role, I probably would've been bored, and to be honest, kind of irritated by the goofiness of the material, but his on-screen charisma makes it so much fun to watch. James Bond saves the world by epic proportions in Moonraker - going from Venice, to Rio de Janeiro, and then all the way to outer space! Yes, totally idiotic, but man is it funny! Bond has been assigned to investigate the theft of a Space Shuttle, which leads him to Hugo Drax, who owns the shuttle's manufacturing firm. Working with Dr. Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles), the two of them try to prevent a sinister plot to eliminate the population with the intention of replacing it with a master race. It's a combination of science fiction and espionage, which I thought was really cool.

Not to generalize, but I already know hardcore Sean Connery fans don't like Moonraker. My impression of Bond fans is they occupy exclusive camps. It doesn't seem like they favor more than one actor who played Bond. I personally like how Roger Moore brought a lighter, less serious side to the character. And he treated the Bond girls as more of a partner in crime, and less of a damsel in distress who always needed to be saved. He was also caring and thoughtful towards his female co-stars off camera as well, always making sure they were safe in the evening. Sean Connery played a different type of Bond. One that was more aggressive, lethal, and domineering. He wasn't exactly the most likeable person in real life either. Regardless of who your favorite Bond is, if you haven't seen Moonraker, give it a chance!

Thunderball (1965)

Wasn't terrible, but not the best either

[5/10 · 29 May 2024]

The only positive aspect of this movie: there wasn't any sexism. Well, the women were still pretty helpless, but they weren't treated like crap for a change. Of course there had to be a romantic angle. In this installment James Bond goes to the Bahamas to locate two NATO bombs that were stolen by SPECTRE. They're holding the world for ransom, threatening to destroy a metropolis in the UK or the US (specifically Miami. The UK metropolis wasn't named). The only memorable scene was James Bond walking into the casino the night he arrived in the Bahamas. Otherwise, this movie is forgettable. The poster was incredibly degrading. They always had to show a group of women drooling and fawning over him, and it was lame.

From a general analysis, James Bond as a whole is a male fantasy. He wins every fight (no matter the size or strength of the other man), can drive as fast as he wants but doesn't crash, and has sex with women all over the universe without reproducing a child. I'm a woman, so I watch the James Bond movies for the mystery and suspense. Perhaps that's why some of the films lack substance, especially the ones from the 1960s. The movies were provocative for their time, considering the Brits were way ahead of Americans in terms of risque content (around the same time this film was made, TV shows in the US still had married couples sleeping in separate beds), but there is some dullness to Sean Connery's portrayal of James Bond. I know hardcore Bond fans think he was the epitome of cool, but let's be real - he was smug, misogynistic, and didn't have a personality. The mystery and thrill that the writers were striving for didn't come until much later in the franchise, which is why I enjoyed GoldenEye a thousand times more than this. The special effects were better, and the Bond girl actually had a career. She was a computer programmer. Plus she wasn't helpless. Her and Bond were more of a team, and over time, developed a physical attraction to each other. When Sean Connery depicted Bond, it was obvious he had the upper hand on all of the women he encountered.

Would I want to spend time with Sean Connery's version of James Bond? Definitely not. There's nothing sexy about an alpha male. The film overall was dated, slow at times, and the acting made serious scenes come off as funny. Like the ending, which was the most hilarious out of the whole movie. Bond ambushes the bad guy, Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi) on the Disco Volante (what a dumb name for a ship), and nobody's steering. It looked like the movement of the ship was sped up, and that had me laughing hysterically. I was in tears laughing.

I wouldn't say Thunderball is worth skipping, but if you do watch it, don't expect much.

Goldfinger (1964)

I don't know what I was thinking...

[3/10 · 29 May 2024]

I had left a review for Goldfinger a couple of years ago. I decided to do a re-write, due to my feelings about it changing. I suppose it takes a while to think over some things. I usually don't delete reviews and write them over again, since the impression I have of most films is pretty set, but this one always gave me mixed emotions. And I really think it has a lot to do with me being a woman. I watch a lot of movies and TV shows that are geared towards men. As a woman, I see the world from a completely different than a man would, so I'm fully aware that I might see something that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. However, with Goldfinger, the sexism, misogyny, and overall dated vibe of the film are inexcusable. You watch The Saint, and Roger Moore was an absolute gentleman, but then you watch this, and women were treated like crap, so when people say it was a different time back then, that argument doesn't work here.

I'm even kind of surprised at myself for arriving to the conclusion that I have, about my detest for this film, because I actually found myself enjoying it the first time around. I don't know if it had something to do with my age. I was approaching my late 20s. I was at an age where I was still impressionable. The only reason I had watched it is because I met a classmate who raved about how amazing it was, and the movies were free on YouTube for a limited time. Looking back now it all seems really silly, but I was glued to my laptop screen. I spent over an hour having to go to the bathroom terribly bad, because I couldn't bring myself to put it on pause. I thought Sean Connery was handsome... I feel embarrassed saying that now. At 34 he looked like he was in his 50s. I didn't even care how unrealistic and nonsensical the plot was. A tycoon, Auric Goldfinger (Gert Frobe), concocts a scheme to raid Fort Knox and destroy the world's economy. James Bond attempts to stop him, armed with gadgets that are so dopey and ineffective by today's standards. His love interest is Goldfinger's personal pilot, Pxxxy Galore (Honor Blackman). I know IMDb won't take down my review if I type it out, but I censored it for my own personal reasons. I just find it to be a very degrading and disgusting word. Guy Hamilton and the producers had wanted to change the name, but they figured if a 10-year-old knew what that meant, then they weren't 10-years-old. Well, I'm sure a 10-year-old now knows what that means.

That's really my biggest issue with this movie - Bond forcing a physical relationship with her. I believe in the book she was supposed to be a lesbian. I don't remember there being any mention of that in the film. Nonetheless, the scene where he forces himself on top of her in the barn was disturbing. Gay or not, she made it clear that she wasn't interested in him romantically. I can't stand that scene. I can't bring myself to like a movie where a man disregards a woman's boundaries, and he's supposed to be the hero. That's just ridiculous to me. I do acknowledge the movie was groundbreaking for its time, as it was really the first film to portray sexual undertones in such an open manner. The cinematography was also impressive for it to have been the 1960s. But otherwise, it's not something that's worth watching again. I had read comments online from people who let their kids watch it. Even with parental guidance, it's still not family-friendly. I don't have children, but I know I wouldn't feel comfortable watching a film with them that glorified nonconsensual touching. You do have to discuss consent with them at some point - I just don't think a Bond movie is the age appropriate example to use. You're not missing anything, trust me. Watch the newer Bond movies.

From Russia with Love (1963)

Cringey and dated

[1/10 · 29 May 2024]

*I'm sure many users will not find my review helpful, because this is a popular film, so if they read the following, they won't agree with me, but I could care less*

I want to start off by saying that I am no longer a fan of James Bond. At the end of the day, I can't truly claim membership to the fandom. I don't engage in "Bondathons" on a weekly or monthly basis (I actually found it exhausting to watch one Bond movie after another. I did go in chronological order - I just skipped over Timothy Dalton and most of Roger Moore's films). I don't have any of the posters on my bedroom wall. And I don't like the Sean Connery era of the franchise. I prefer the Pierce Brosnan era. Throughout his 30s and early 40s, he was more handsome than Sean Connery, who quite frankly, looked like an old man when he was in the same age group. Many fans think he was the best Bond, despite not even sounding British (if you listen closely, you can hear that he rolled his R's, which is characteristic of a Scottish accent). But, aside from that, his portrayal of the character mirrored Ian Fleming's books more so than the other actors who preceded him. Taking into consideration that Sean Connery's version of Bond was a sex hungry rake, I can't in good conscience say his depiction is my favorite.

Back when the Bond movies were free on YouTube, I made it my mission to watch each of them. Dr. No was quite action-packed but still dated. I was impressed by Goldfinger, but the scene where he forces himself on top of Pxxxy Galore always bothered me. I felt kind of guilty for liking the movie because of that scene. I watched Thunderball, and that's where I stopped, until I picked back up at The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, and GoldenEye, all of which I enjoyed. From Russia with Love is arguably the cringiest Sean Connery Bond film. It sounds awesome on paper, but on screen, it was so corny. Bond is going up against a secret organization, aka SPECTRE. Rosa Klebb (Lotte Lenya) and Kronsteen are trying to seize possession of a decoding device known as the Lektor. They use Tatiana (Daniela Bianchi) to trick Bond into helping them. After going to Istanbul to meet her, he has to escape numerous encounters with the enemy.

This is the most anti-woman out of the whole series. Tatiana is either treated like a sex toy or a punching bag, depending on Bond's mood. One minute he slaps her butt out of happiness, and then the next he slaps her face out of rage. I know it was 1963, but it was degrading, and I honestly do believe that's why the world is still experiencing sexism and male-on-female violence. I don't blame Patrick McGoohan for declining the role. I also agree with what he said, about Bond being a terrible example to children. A lot of men spent their childhood and teenage years watching this movie, in addition to Sean Connery's other installments. You can't tell me they didn't have an impact on their perspective of women. And what amazes me, is they haven't outgrew those films. You'd think after becoming an adult, at some point they would realize how silly they are.

It was interesting doing research on the Bond fandom. I read an article written by a gay man who's obsessed with the series. His favorite Bond is Roger Moore. I was surprised, since fans don't normally cite him as their favorite, due to his interpretation of the character as much less serious compared to Sean Connery. But I found something else he said/wrote to be quite troubling. He said being sexy doesn't mean sexist (referring to Bond), and they 'intentionally' choose actors who are good looking. So just as long as a man is good looking, it's okay for him to be a womanizer? That's a troubling assertion for someone to make, I don't care what their romantic orientation is. I was acquainted with a person who was a huge Bond fan, whom I met when I was taking courses for my Master's degree. After a few years, I finally stopped corresponding with him. Very opinionated and self-righteous individual. He wasn't like that in class, so I don't know why he changed. Either it was because he graduated before me, which he was scheduled to do anyway, and that gave him an inflated ego (I guess he thought I was stupid, and therefore wouldn't complete the program. I got mostly A's on my papers, and finished magna cum laude, so there certainly wasn't a chance of me flunking). Or he watched Sean Connery's Bond films on repeat since the time he was a child. I imagine watching this and the 5 others he made a gazillion times would make anyone out of touch with reality.

The later Bond films were epic, unlike this sexist garbage. Don't believe the hype.

Dr. No (1962)

I was impressed at first, but I no longer care for this film, or James Bond in general

[1/10 · 29 May 2024]

A classmate I met when I was a graduate student got me interested in James Bond. Before I even saw any of the movies, I watched a compilation of clips from the films on YouTube where he slapped the female characters. I was immediately turned off. What's so cool about a man physically assaulting women??? Later on during the winter of 2020 the Bond films were free on YouTube, so I figured I might as well take advantage. I often say I don't like something, movies especially, before I give them a chance. Dr. No, the first movie that would later make James Bond an international sensation, has James Bond (Sean Connery) fighting to defeat a scientific genius who wants to destroy the US space program. The mission sends him to Jamaica, where he meets Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress). She joins him (well, she doesn't do much - she's just along for the ride, no pun intended) in locating Dr. No's island headquarters.

I will admit - I was quite blown away by the cinematography, as I thought it was exceptional to be a film that was made 60 years ago, but thinking about it now, I agree with the IMDb users who said it's outdated. If I'm being totally honest, after watching realistic crime dramas, I don't like James Bond anymore. Well, I'll always love GoldenEye, but then again, it's a lot more progressive compared to this film. The franchise originated from archaic ideologies, and after giving it much thought, my level of passion for it has decreased tenfold. When you step back and look at it from the whole picture, it has problematic elements. Have fans ever done research on Dr. No?? According to the production details, it was racist and sexist. Are fans not aware of this, or do they know but they don't care? Ursula Andress was chosen for her body shape, and she had a painted on tan to make herself appear Jamaican. Joseph Wiseman (Dr. No) had special makeup applied to look Chinese. It was the early 60s. I get it - some of the things allowed in movies at that time are unacceptable now. But anyone who still watches this film and lauds it as a masterpiece is strange to me.

Cary Grant was considered for the role. That idea eventually went out the window, because he had planned on doing one individual film, rather than a series. His on screen persona was funny and charming, so it's not like he would've been convincing as James Bond anyway (Bond was/is a ruthless assassin... Not exactly a person who has a sense of humor). Patrick McGoohan was offered the role, but he declined for a moral reason. He refused to play a womanizing character.

I've never been a leave your brain at the door type, so I like to be challenged when I watch thrillers. Bond movies are formulaic and predictable. The person from school - after I saw the compilation of clips, I told him I had no desire to watch the movies if all he does is slap females. He said James Bond wasn't a creep, he tried to prevent it (I think he meant violence). Yeah, sure. Any man who hits women is a creep to me. He also said 'he slapped a few women.' So just because he only slapped a few, as opposed to A LOT of women, that makes it okay? If that's how James Bond followers think, I'm happy to no longer be a part of the fandom (I eventually stopped talking to him. He was too opinionated). They seem like an out of touch group of people. Watch MI5 instead.

Sanford (1980–1981)

Just okay. Nowhere near as funny as the original

[5/10 · 23 May 2024]

This spin-off really isn't as bad compared to others that were popular throughout the late 70s/early 80s. If you're a fan of the original Sanford and Son, you might enjoy this. Redd Foxx was still hilarious. Unfortunately, Demond Wilson declined the offer to reprise his role as Lamont, so the storyline was written to have him leaving California to work on a pipeline in Alaska. Not like it was far-fetched. Lamont had to move out at some point. The only downside to the show, was it kind of stopped making sense later on in the series. Then again, it started out that way in the pilot episode. Just like other spin-offs, Sanford isn't without its inconsistencies and lack of logic. Lamont sends a guy he's working with, Cal (Dennis Burkley), who's white and from Texas, to visit Fred. Why didn't he go see Fred himself? That is his father, after all. Cal ends up moving in and becoming Fred's business partner. That's awful extreme. How do you go from visiting someone's parent for them, to quitting your job and living with them? Despite having insulted him a million times in previous years, Fred hires Rollo (Nathaniel Taylor) to make deliveries. Donna is no longer in the picture. That wasn't a surprise anyway, considering she revealed to Fred that another man proposed to her in season 5. He gets emotional, as he comes to the realization that he truly doesn't want to marry her, because he's still deeply in love with Elizabeth, his deceased wife, so that was the end of their engagement/relationship. He starts dating another woman, Evelyn (Marguerite RaClara). Her brother, Winston (Percy Rodriguez) and her maid, Clara (Cathy Cooper), don't like Fred, seeing him as beneath Evelyn due to him living in Watts and managing a junkyard. By the second season, Sanford was showing signs of potentially getting canceled, as it was moved from Saturday to Friday nights. It was no wonder. The show had started going on a major decline. They eliminated one of the central characters, and additional characters were dropped out of nowhere. Rollo, Winston, Cissy, and Clara were written out of the story, and the scripts weren't adjusted with the other characters giving reasons for why. Woodrow, Aunt Esther's (LaWanda Page) husband, died, which leads her to move in with Fred and Cal to because she fears that Fred will be a negative influence on her son, Cliff (Clinton Derricks-Carroll), who's also living with them. He's in college, so how can anyone be a negative influence on him? He's an adult. And besides, what happened to Daniel??? The teenager her and Woodrow adopted 5 years before. That was dumb to have another actor replace him. Not to mention, as much as her and Fred couldn't stand each other, they're living together? This really must be set in an alternate universe. Some of the episodes are idiotic, like when Fred finds out he was actually married to Aunt Esther, leading to him, Aunt Esther, and Cal making the 27 hour drive to Missouri so they can get a divorce. My thing is, why even do a spin-off if it's just going to be outrageous anyway? I know many actors and actresses love what they do, but I wonder if they had ever felt like a project was a waste of time. This show isn't necessarily bad. The first season is alright, but it starts going downhill by the second.

Yes, Dear (2000–2006)

Just another sitcom that glamorized toxic families

[1/10 · 20 May 2024]

Seems like comedy TV shows that revolved around unhealthy family dynamics were popular in the early 2000s, with Everybody Loves Raymond being the most notable. It's not like there's been much improvement, but I don't see shows like that anymore. I guess with the rise of political correctness, and the increase of mental health issues from the social isolation of the pandemic, people nowadays are less interested in a sitcom where families argue, criticize, and make disparaging remarks towards each other. But why sitcoms like that were popular 20-something years ago, is a mystery. I think in a way, they had the unintentional effect of normalizing unkind and mean-spirited behavior. I was a kid when Yes, Dear was on, and I thought it was stupid. I suppose I was a pretty smart kid. Not to mention, I was/am fortunate enough to have a loving and supportive family. I never witnessed dysfunction in the home. Not too many people can say that. So when I watched a show about a couple who was always having problems, and they had young kids to boot, I didn't see where it was funny. Greg and Kim (Anthony Clark and Jean Louisa Kelly) are a laid-back couple to two kids, living a relatively quiet life, until Kim's sister Christine (Liza Snyder) and husband Jimmy (Mike O'Malley) move into their guest house with their annoying and hyperactive children. The jokes were dumb, uncreative, and mostly revolved around sex. I guess it's on DVD now. An person would have to be quite strange to still watch this 24 years later. Well, to each their own. If you'd like to give it a try, just as a warning, it might look harmless on the outside, but it's not a family show.

Silver Spoons (1982–1987)

More than 1 star is being too generous

[1/10 · 19 May 2024]

I know millennials rave about how awesome the 80s was (not sure why, because if you're a millennial, you were just being born in the 80s, so it's not like you would remember much about it), but it doesn't seem like it was a special decade. If you ask me, it marks the point when television started declining. The only 80s sitcom I enjoy is Facts of Life. It portrayed friendship between girls realistically, as well as the friendships and human connections of people in general. I can't name any others that I like. For the most part, they're very stupid and unrealistic. Silver Spoons is not an exception. A man named Edward Stratton III (Joel Higgins) is living as a carefree bachelor, until a little boy shows up at his mansion, Ricky Stratton (Ricky Schroder), proclaiming to be his son. Edward is confused, because he was only married to his ex-wife for a week. But how dumb of him to think that, you know? Like they didn't have sex within that window of time. Ricky was attending a military boarding school, but Edward disguises himself as a swamp monster and gets Ricky out of the school, taking him back to live with him. There is no way he has the mental capacity to raise a child. His mansion is full of arcade games and toys. He's the owner of a toy business, but there's no justifiable reason for a grown adult man to be so silly. I know it's all pretend, but it's extremely ridiculous. If you're a parent, trying to be your child's friend isn't going to result in a positive relationship. Unstable people only flourish in a make believe world. I watch fiction to be entertained, but I don't wanna turn off my brain completely. Very idiotic show that I recommend skipping.

Grizzy and the Lemmings (2016–2023)

I laugh at this way harder than I should

[10/10 · 18 May 2024]

I'm not the targeted demographic. I'm 31, and I don't have children, but it's become my personal enjoyment, when I need to give my brain a break and just want something silly to watch. I can see where some people think the creators stole the concept from Open Season, but it's a unique and creative storyline. A bear who makes himself at home in the house of a forest ranger whenever he's gone. He eats up the ranger's food, lounges around on the furniture, and uses the air conditioning when needed. Add in a gaggle of pesky creatures who are called "lemmings," and you have various unpredictable, goofy situations. I don't understand the negative reviews. But they also make me wonder if I should be concerned. Like am I crazy for laughing at something that has some kids staring expressionless at the TV screen? I don't see how it's repetitive. There is a pointlessness to it, in a sense that it's not educational. No lessons are taught, and it doesn't help with language, since the characters don't talk. They just make random noises. So I do understand why some parents think it's not doing anything for their child's brain growth. My brain has fully developed, so it's not going to cause me any harm. It's up to you what you allow your kids to watch. While it won't deprive them intellectually, it's not the most challenging program. Everything is okay in moderation. If you're worried about your child's brain, it's best to stop after a few episodes.

Legacy List (2019– )

Not relatable for the working and middle class

[3/10 · 14 May 2024]

I love PBS. I feel like I learn more from watching it compared to network TV, which just repeats the same news stories. All of their shows are unbiased, and opens your eyes to different issues and perspectives. But I find Legacy List is a show that doesn't appeal to me. I've actually never watched it in its entirety. I noticed it comes on at midnight, and by that time I'm getting ready for bed. But it always seemed pretentious to me. Matt Paxton works with people who are downsizing by helping them organize and catalogue their heirlooms. Last night I took a moment to pay attention to the beginning of an episode, and this woman was moving to France. When I heard that, my first thought was okay, these people are rich. The opening of the show is sequences of the houses that people were moving out of. They're not from a low socioeconomic background, that's for sure. Their homes are just one level below a mansion. As can be imagined, they have A LOT of belongings to move with them. What I don't like, is how they only help rich people move. Like I guess if they were to help poor people, they wouldn't have enough possessions for it to fill up an hour slot on TV. If you search for the synopsis, it says he helps baby boomers. No wonder they have such large houses and so many antiques! They're at a time in their life where they're financially stable, more so than people who are just starting out in their career. Being in my early 30s, that could be why it's a bit boring for me. I think it'll be interesting to people from a certain demographic, but to me, it's just rich people who need help moving. The rest of PBS's shows are really fascinating though. Just skip this one.

Mrs. Columbo (1979–1980)

Completely idiotic spin-off

[1/10 · 13 May 2024]

When I saw an episode of this show on YouTube (I only clicked on it because the title looked interesting - it said Kate Loves a Mystery, which I later found out was not the original title. If someone who had never heard of this show was seeing it for the first time, they wouldn't associate it with Columbo), and realized it was about Columbo's wife, it's not like my expectations were all that high. I'm just not a fan of spin-offs. I think a lot of them were silly and unneeded. I have yet to find a spin-off, even if it originated from a TV show I enjoy, that has any semblance of continuity or logic. I love Columbo. I don't know about other fans, but I didn't care that his wife was never shown. He would often talk about her, mostly whenever he went off-topic during his questioning of the murderer in the process of his detective work. I liked that she remained invisible throughout the series, because it allowed the audience to visualize her appearance. I actually found that to be kind of fun, imagining what she looked like. Well, apparently, what the writers of this show visualized, and what I did, are two completely different things. Kate Mulgrew was miscast, and I'm sure most fans will agree with me. Columbo did not look like the type of man who would marry a woman young enough to be his daughter. As if that's not ridiculous enough, they have a child who looks to be about 8- or 9-years-old. Peter Falk was 52 in 1979, so he could've had a child (well, men can produce children at any age really). Okay, I guess that's not the point. I don't remember him mentioning he had kids. He said something about having a nephew, but he wasn't a father. So you have two major things ruining the show: a young wife, and a child. The overall storyline, of her being a detective, makes no sense. Just because her husband has the skillset to solve murders doesn't mean she does. I won't even get into how bad the acting is. This show is just dumb. It was nothing but Hollywood greed. Peter Falk didn't even give the show his endorsement, and the ratings turned out to be low... As if that was a surprise. I don't see how true fans can actually like this. So cringe and unnecessary.

Banacek (1972–1974)

Just a rip off of Mannix

[1/10 · 10 May 2024]

To each their own opinion, but I don't see what the big deal about this show is. Discovered it on Pluto TV, which led me to read up on it. There's nothing unique, groundbreaking, or intriguing. It's all been done before. Seriously, who can't tell this is a copycat of Mannix? It's the same show with just a few slight changes. A Polish American private investigator who's a military veteran, and has a list of proverbs from his culture memorized, which he appropriately uses for the context of every situation. He's also skilled at using hand-to-hand combat, a ladies' man, and fiercely athletic. Only difference is he lives in Boston and not LA. I'm a huge fan of Mannix, and Banacek will never be on the same level in terms of the acting, script, and characterizations. George Peppard didn't even have Polish ancestry. Mike Connors was Armenian American, like his character, so can't get any more realistic than that. After watching Mannix, this is like a really poor imitation. I know my review will probably get a lot of downvotes, but that's just how I feel. Mediocre shows are always overhyped, and this is one of them. Take my advice and watch Mannix instead.

McLintock! (1963)

Absolutely terrible! Can only be liked by John Wayne fans

[1/10 · 3 May 2024]

I saw this movie at a family member's house. Trust me, if I was at my house, there is no way McClintock would've been a choice of mine. I had heard of it, and knowing it starred John Wayne, I had no interest to see it. For one thing, I don't like cowboy films, with the exception of a couple spaghetti westerns. And after reading about John Wayne's ideologies, I don't care for him as a person, which turned me off from his films. I don't think his movies would appeal to a wide range of people nowadays. He always played the same type of character: manly, gruff, expressionless... Savior to women. That type of characterization is archaic in this day and time. And it's not because my generation is hypersensitive. Things change. That's just the way of the world. I feel like people who want societal standards to go back 60 or 70 years have a hard time accepting change.

In McClintock, he stars alongside Maureen O'Hara. They're an estranged couple, and she returns, wanting custody of their adult daughter. As if he doesn't have enough confusion in his personal life, on top of that, he has to contend with various groups in the area wanting a piece of his farmstead. I won't go into the details, because it's honestly not worth my time discussing. The best way to summarize it: the signature hijinks and craziness that Hollywood westerns were known for at the time ensues. Racism, sexism. Native Americans getting shot and being portrayed as savages in general. Men fighting each other and acting like bona fide idiots. All of the female characters are treated like second-class citizens. I was done after the scene where John Wayne's character let another man spank his daughter. Any film that has men spanking women crosses a boundary for me. It's ridiculous for a man (or anyone else) to assume the position of exerting punishment on a full grown woman. When I see that, I know it's time for me to watch something else. But I wasn't in my house, so I couldn't turn the channel. I can't see anyone enjoying McClintock, unless they're a fuddy-duddy type person. It's definitely for John Wayne fans. Once you have awareness of the unfair treatment that minorities experience, it's hard to enjoy movies like this.

Girlfriend Intervention (2014)

Was this for real?

[1/10 · 2 May 2024]

I was flipping through the channels, and came across this on IMPACT. I never understood some of the programs they air, with it being a Christian network. They're superficial, which is inappropriate to be displaying/promoting on a religious channel. I saw Girlfriend Intervention, and it peaked my curiosity so much that I searched for it online. When I read the synopsis, it sounded so absurd that I thought I was reading it wrong. A group of black women who specialize in giving makeovers to white women. They not only remake their outfits, but their house decor as well, and the makeovers change their life. Seriously??? That is stupid. I won't call this reverse racism, because it's a concept that carries with it major controversy, and its existence has been argued, but it does negatively stereotype white people. It's implying they all dress like dorks, so to resolve that issue, get black women to help improve their style? That's really narrow-minded. I'm black, and a woman. I wear hoodies, sweatshirts, flannels, overalls, holey jeans, sneakers, combat boots, and double buckle sandals, that I sometimes pair with socks when it's a little cold. I have several skirts, which I love, but I have to be in the mood to wear them. My style is a bit masculine (I'm not gay - I just don't like clothes that look girly or overly feminine). I'm probably not considered stylish by some people. I use myself as an example to show a person's race has nothing to do with their choice of clothing, and all black women are not fashionistas. I'm happy this garbage didn't last for more than one season, but it was a complete waste of time anyway. No wonder society has so many problems.

The Price is Right (1972– )

Best game show in history!

[10/10 · 29 April 2024]

Not sure why my previous review was taken down. It was positive, so none of my comments were offensive. I don't understand all of the criticism of Drew Carey. I love Bob Barker too (may he RIP), but I think Drew has done a phenomenal job of filling his shoes. That's not an easy thing to do - replacing someone who was pretty much a legend. I get a lot of people who have been watching Price Is Right since 1972 are probably not a fan of Drew, but he's not that bad, especially when you compare him to other game show hosts, and just people on TV in general, who are all mostly awkward and plastic. He has a sincere and genuine personality. Yes, he laughs at his own jokes (I guess you wouldn't like being around me then, because I do the same thing), but I get a good vibe from him through my screen. I don't care for much of anything that's on TV, but I look forward to watching this on my days off. There's talk shows on other channels, but they don't wake me up like the Price Is Right does. I'm not a morning person, and watching people have conversations around a table or sitting on a couch just doesn't do it for me. This show makes me feel energized to start my day. With the sad and peculiar times we're living in, Drew's goofy sense of humor and the colorful assortment of contestants are a much needed dopamine-boost. And it's natural, so you can't go wrong!

Weakest Link (2020– )

Please stop remaking British TV shows

[1/10 · 29 April 2024]

Seriously, every show that originated from Britain doesn't need to be remade by Americans. I'm American, but I grew up watching a lot of British programming. Not to be a traitor, but this country does a poor job of imitating much of anything that came out of the UK. Trivia can be fascinating, but Jane Lynch's sarcasm ruins the fun of discovering new information. I understand that's the point (and I'm sure the contestants know they're going to be roasted ahead of time - most of it is probably staged), but she's just not good at being snarky and funny simultaneously. The British do sarcasm the best. I feel like when Americans do it, they sound demeaning and unkind. But I don't know. I might like Weakest Link if it didn't remind me of my own experiences. I've dealt with my fair share of sarcastic people at previous jobs I've had. Now I just see anyone who's like that as incredibly boring. This show wasn't my thing. Stick with Jeopardy if you love trivia.

The Parkers (1999–2023)

Sort of funny, but very annoying and stupid overall

[5/10 · 24 April 2024]

Like the reviewer who also gave this a low rating, I have mixed feelings as well. I didn't wanna give it a 1, but it's definitely on the lower end of the spectrum if you're looking at 90s/early 2000s sitcoms as a whole. I was too young to watch episodes of The Parkers in their entirety when it first came on TV, but I have vivid memories of it. I thought it was funny as a kid, especially when Mo'Nique would always say 'hey, boo!' But I have a different opinion of it now as an adult. It comes on Dabl every day at 6/6:30pm. I did enjoy it, but I guess that's because I hadn't seen it in such a long time. After a while I found myself increasingly annoyed with how dumb it is. The only time I watch it is if I happen to be in the living room when it's on. Mo'Nique plays Nikki Parker. She attends Santa Monica College with her daughter, Kim (Countess Vaughn). She dropped out of high school when she got pregnant with Kim, so she wanted to get an education to better herself. The main source of comedy is her obsessively chasing after one of the instructors, Professor Oglevee (Dorien Wilson). It starts out as humorous in the beginning of the series, but reaches a point of going from a harmless love interest to just being downright unsettling. The episodes also focus on the antics of Kim and her friends, which are all very stupid and lack believability. Don't get me wrong - I really have nothing against turning off my brain for entertainment purposes. My job is stressful, so it's nice to watch something ridiculous at the end of the day, but some things are so stupid that they get on my nerves. It's a bizarre sitcom. The characters live in the real world, but their situations are so outlandish, that it's like they're in an alternate universe. The storyline would've been rejected if it portrayed what really happens in life. Because let's be real - they would never make a show where a man stalks and terrorizes a woman, and/or commits acts of unwanted touching, like pinching or grabbing them by the butt. People would be so disgusted and shocked. Yet they laugh when a woman is the one who's being a perv. But hey, the US has screwed up and outdated beliefs when it comes to anything gender-related, so what do you expect? Mo'Nique is hilarious in the role, but the stalking just takes the humor out of it for me. I used to work in a library, and I was harassed by a couple of the patrons. The first was an older man, and the second was a guy around my age. He seemed po'ed that I gave him a fake number when he asked for mine. I only did that so he would go away. He actually came back a few days later and walked up to me as I was shelving books, wanting to know why I didn't give him my real number. He left me alone afterwards, thankfully. I felt uncomfortable, violated, and scared. It's not fun having to wonder if some nut is going to be waiting for you outside when your shift ends. I'm sure if I was a man, and it was women that I wasn't attracted to who kept bothering me, my feelings would've been the same (well, in that case, I wouldn't have been scared, but definitely perturbed). Some things just don't have a comedic element, no matter how many angles you look at it from. This is a waste of time, even if you want something to veg out to.

Tabitha (1976–1978)

Was a nice idea, but there's one too many flaws

[1/10 · 23 April 2024]

I'm not a fan of Bewitched. It's just okay. I'll watch it if nothing else is on. It doesn't make me laugh all that much compared to I Dream of Jeannie. It's a boring show. Samantha was a housewife, and although the humor came from the nutty situations her magic got the people around her into, the jokes were bland, and the characters one-dimensional (except for her mom). Tabitha, her daughter, inherited her magical abilities. She was a funny little girl. Bewitched stayed on for quite a long time, and should've ended right where it did. But Hollywood loves to do spin-offs. Many of them are awful. There's no other explanation I can think of for spin-offs being made besides money. Judging from the crappy shows that have came out of Hollywood - and still do - money is placed over quality.

Four years after Bewitched ended, the public was introduced to Tabitha. The series follows her life, living as a witch in a mortal society. This had the potential to be a cute show, but its flaws are too prominent to ignore. Did the writers do any research on the original series? Or at least know how to do basic math? Tabitha was born in 1964, which would make her 12 in 1976. But in the show, she's a woman in her 20s, living independently with a full-time job and car. She works as a production assistant at a TV station in LA, along with her brother, Adam, who's older this time around, and not younger like he was in Bewitched. Also, Samantha and Darrin aren't in the story, so I guess her and Adam hatched from an egg. The acting is cringe. Everyone's conversations sound rehearsed. The only positive thing I can identify is Lisa Hartman sounding just like Elizabeth Montgomery, so she was believable playing the part of her daughter. Otherwise, fans will be greatly disappointed with this spin-off. It was a missed opportunity. It made no sense not to include Samantha and Darrin. And changing the ages of Tabitha and Adam was just plain dumb. I'm surprised it stayed on for more than one season. The lack of continuity and the absence of logic just make it unenjoyable.

Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)

Powerful character study of a troubled detective

[10/10 · 20 April 2024]

I really enjoyed Where the Sidewalk Ends. The title sounded intriguing, and it didn't deliver anything short of my expectations. For such a poignant and deep noir, the story was actually quite simple to follow. The audience is introduced to Mark Dixon (Dana Andrews), an NYPD detective who often gets reprimanded for his violent tendencies. After a Texas tycoon, Mr. Morrison (Harry von Zell), is killed by another man named Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) during a floating crap game at a gangster's residence (Tommy Scalise, played by Gary Merrill) over a fight that started when the woman who was with Paine - his wife, Morgan (Gene Tierney) - said she wanted to go home (Morrison offered to take her home), what ensues for Dixon plunges him into furthering jeopardizing his career, and ruining his life overall. Morgan and Paine are not together, due to his physical abuse. Upon entering Paine's apartment, they get into an altercation, which results in Dixon hitting Paine, and he dies after falling to the floor. It becomes apparent just how much of a disturbed man he really is. The scene where him and his colleague are looking around the apartment, and he opens the closet, looks right at Paine's body, that he had put in there to hide, then tells his colleague the closet was empty, was so chilling. The film itself is creepy, but not in such a way that will cause one to feel unsettled. It's more or less an examination of a mentally unstable law enforcement professional, who teeters back and forth between wanting to do what's right, but also struggling not to become like his father, who was a criminal and mobster. He's not a character who you'll find yourself rooting for. His perpetration of murder and the tireless work he goes through to cover it up result in Morgan's father (Tom Tully) getting arrested for killing Paine. Most of that was his own fault, though. He was talking too much. If he hadn't of been such a blabbermouth - going on and on about how he wanted to put his hands on Paine, saying he had it coming to him - he probably wouldn't have activated Lt. Thomas's (Karl Malden) suspicion. But I think the filmmakers wrote that situation into the story to show how innocent people can suffer negative consequences at the hands of another person's misdeed. Morgan was living with her dad after having separated from Paine, and watching him go to jail, along with not being able to afford a lawyer, absolutely crushes her. It's a thought-provoking film, and I will be sure to watch it again. The performances from the whole cast are so believable. If you're a fan of noirs with urban settings, I highly recommend this.

The Night Runner (1957)

Impressively suspenseful

[10/10 · 18 April 2024]

Maybe it's because I'm not much of a fan when it comes to popular box office movies withs super famous actors and actresses. Films that people rave about are usually overrated. I gravitate towards the movies that most people have never heard of, and some don't care for. I enjoy B films, especially noirs from the mid-20th century. The low budget gave it an authentic quality, and it never goes out of style. The cast delivered such heartfelt performances, making their characters seem so vulnerable. A unique film for its time, Night Runner gives the audience a glimpse into the mind of a sociopath. Roy Turner (Ray Danton) is a young man who has been discharged from a mental hospital, and is told by his psychiatrist to avoid stress. He goes to LA, which turns out to be overwhelming for him, so he takes a bus to a coastal town. He moves into a motel, where he meets Susan Mayes (Colleen Miller, "Step Down to Terror"). They start a relationship. Everything in Roy's life seems to be going well for a change, until her father (Willis Bouchey) finds out he was hospitalized for psychological instability. He had suspicions about Roy ever since the day he met him, and was against him dating Susan, so that pretty much confirmed his negative feelings. He tells Roy to leave, and Roy becomes so enraged that he kills him. He tries to hide the deterioration of his mental health, as he and Susan are in the process of selling the motel and moving somewhere else. For a movie of short duration, it had a solid story and didn't feel rushed. It's a great choice for if you're bored on a Friday or Saturday night and are in the mood for something suspenseful.

Tracker (2024– )

Finally, an action-packed series with eye candy!

[10/10 · 16 April 2024]

If you click on my username and go through my reviews, you'll see I'm not one for contemporary media. I have a hard time finding something decent to watch that was made within the 21st century, so I gravitate towards old TV shows. I just feel like they're of better quality than what's coming on today. I had seen the previews for Tracker, and to be honest, I thought it looked silly. After seeing junk like CSI, NCIS, Fire Country, etc., I figured CBS wasn't worth my time. Their shows were just a lot of violence with limited character exploration. Well, lo and behold, I was wrong! (which I often am). I happened to stumble across Tracker, and after only one episode, it's become a staple of my Sunday nights! Anything suspenseful with an attractive lead actor is sure to have me hooked. There's such a high volume of awkward and funny looking men on television. I was starting to lose hope of seeing a ruggedly handsome man casted for anything.

Tracker is the story of Colter Shaw (Justin Hartley), a survivalist who travels the US with his retro camper in tow, helping everyday people and law enforcement with missing persons cases. His backstory is tragic - his father was a professor at UC Berkley, had a nervous breakdown, and moved the family out to the wilderness, to live off the grid. Colter's brother killed their father, and understandably, the two of them haven't spoken to each other since. Backstories in contemporary shows are usually lame and unrealistic, but I feel like in this case, it adds depth to Colter's character. Instead of becoming depressed and bitter, he took his traumatic experience and used it for something positive - to help other people search for their loved ones. In this day and time, with all of the negativity that's happening in the world, we could really use an inspirational show like this. Added bonus is the beautiful scenery, as it's filmed on location in British Columbia.

I'm sure other people have already noticed (and some might've even felt uncomfortable), but there are characters of different races and sexual orientations. There's a lesbian couple, but who cares?? They're not even the main focus of the episodes. You do have to be open-minded to a certain degree in order to enjoy modern television.

Like another reviewer said, it is too early to tell where this series will go, and whether or not it'll lose its quality. But I have a feeling it's not in danger of going downhill. I just hope it stays on beyond a few seasons.

ESPN First Take (2007– )

Hilarious and headache-inducing

[1/10 · 16 April 2024]

I'm not gonna lie - I don't follow sports closely. I watch golf and Indy racing during the spring and summer on Saturdays. I only go on YouTube to watch this when I need a laugh. And believe me, I find myself crying. I think it's so funny because women have always been labeled as hysterical and overly emotional. There's only one woman, and she's present to make sure their discussions don't spiral out of control, but they do anyway. Everybody else is a straight, cisgender male, and they are the most unbalanced, toxic, argumentative, and rudest people I've ever watched. I haven't seen a group with conversational skills this bad in a while. They shout, yell, interrupt, and talk at the same time. They're belligerent, malicious, volatile. They pick apart each other's opinions. It's completely laughable, which is why I wondered if it was even real. No one flies off the handle over a minor disagreement, unless something is seriously wrong with them, like a psychiatric disorder. I really think if they had guns, they would pull them on one another. What I never understood, is why they have a female as the moderator. You couldn't pay me all the money in the world to sit in the middle of that dysfunction. They would stress me out so bad, that once I got home, I would be reaching for a bottle of wine and drinking straight from the bottle the second I came in through the front door. This show is virtually unwatchable. If you're a serious sports fan, I would avoid.

CSI: Cyber (2015–2016)

Only CSI fanatics will be interested

[1/10 · 15 April 2024]

As if Patricia Arquette's acting in Medium wasn't bad enough, after that ended, the public had to be further tortured by watching her as a psychologist who creates and leads FBI's Cyber Crime Division in New York. She's in charge of a group of people who are former cyber criminals and federal agents. They solve hackings, cyber thefts, blackmail, and other crimes that occur online. I love technology, and I find cybersecurity to be a fascinating topic. But this show is so incredibly boring. The acting is crap - not just from Patricia Arquette, but everyone else who was involved. None of them were convincing in their roles. Too many CSI shows have been made throughout the years. All they've done is given young people a false perception of forensic science, so they choose it as a major in college, thinking it's going to be action-packed because of what they saw on TV, and are disappointed to find out that it's actually quite uneventful work. This show is nothing special. It has the generic CSI format: theme song by The Who, phony storylines, cringe acting, and stereotypical characters.

McMillan & Wife (1971–1977)

Boring, campy, and weird. Script sounds like it was written by a 12-year-old

[1/10 · 10 April 2024]

I had a feeling I wouldn't like it, but I wanted to give McMillan & Wife a try. The title sounds cute, and really, that's all it is. Cute, with a lot of fluff. Nothing of substance. I might be a female, but I love gritty, intense, and even somewhat frightening crime thrillers. With all of the kissing, hugging, and goo goo eyeing Rock Hudson and Susan Saint James do, it gives off the vibe of a chick flick. Any story that focuses heavily on the characters' romantic relationship gets boring for me. Perhaps it's because of the generation I'm from. People nowadays aren't placing a ton of importance on getting married. There has to be other aspects to the story besides love to hold my attention. Although Rock Hudson (Stuart "Mac" McMillan) played a police commissioner in San Francisco, there was little to no suspense. And that might've been due to his dorky wife, Sally, an amateur detective, helping him with solving the cases. I was expecting her character to be, well, I don't know, more attractive and mature. She reminded me of a nerd. While they were somewhat passable as a couple, the longer you looked at them, it didn't look realistic for them to be together. Rock Hudson was 46, and she was 25, so no wonder she looked more like his daughter than his wife. He was 21 when she was born, so he technically could've been her father. That only shows how dated this is - a man who's in a relationship with a woman who's basically a kid compared to him. Him being gay in real life had nothing to do with why they didn't look right as a couple. It's just that the substantial age difference was obvious, even before I searched for their DOBs (at first I was like hmm, maybe Rock Hudson wasn't that old but just looked old. With the type of lifestyle celebrities live - spending long hours shooting films and/or TV shows, doing interviews, going to parties, and sometimes not getting enough sleep - that's possible). They don't quite look like the sexy couple that they were trying to portray.

I didn't even make it to end of the pilot episode. The acting was unimpressive. The conversations weren't believable (when they're in a traffic jam, Stuart tells his chauffer 'I know I had to go to work, and I know you had to take me, but why did we bring the car.' No one talks like that). The dialogue was also risque for its time. But watching it from a 21st century perspective, it just sounded dumb. Sally telling Stuart on the phone that she wanted to tear off his clothes, knowing other people were around. Stuart talking to Sally while she was taking a shower and telling her he didn't have any underwear, because he tore his last pair when they got stuck in his zipper (I think it was implied he was zipping up his pants after having finished going to the bathroom. That's what it sounded like to me). Before they leave for an auction, he tells her he's going upstairs to put on swim trunks, then he says he can't walk around with no underwear and laughs. When a script is bawdy, that's enough for me to know I'm not in for anything special. The innuendos weren't clever. Just seemed more or less like they were trying to make something where there wasn't anything. And some people think Mannix is lame. This went back and forth between either being a yawnfest, or just totally awkward.