jmcgil22 Reviews

Girlfriends' Guide to Divorce (2014–2018)

Hollywood Misogyny at Its Finest

[1/10 · 3 January 2016]

Girlfriends' Guide to Divorce is Hollywood misogyny at its finest. I am embarrassed for everyone who is involved with this show. The show follows a group of obnoxious, narcissistic selfish, neurotic, and spiteful women who cannot keep it together on any level. None of the characters are likable at all, especially the lead character Abbey. And they all have disastrous personal and professional lives despite their endless supply of life coaches, gurus, shamans, housekeepers and nannies. They are also terrible parents with zero emotional connection to their annoying children. The story lines on the show range from highly implausible to simply ridiculous with cringe-worthy dialog, while the characters' personalities seem to change from one episode to the next. The token gay and minority characters have small roles that do not fit well into the show. Worse, they are sadly stereotypical and completely mundane. I am not sure why Hollywood finds it so difficult to create strong and interesting female characters who actually have it together; characters that would be more representative of the female adult population. Instead they continue to push the same tiring, nagging, hypocritical, intrusive, bitchy, crazy, promiscuous trainwrecks ad nauseam. Come on, Hollywood, try harder!

UPDATE: I just read that Janeane Garofalo left the show in the middle of the first season because of "creative differences". I have a lot of respect for someone who has enough integrity to walk away from this embarrassment, instead of showing up for a paycheck.

True Detective (2014– )

Season 2 Does Not Carry the Torch

[2/10 · 27 June 2015]

The first season was critically acclaimed, and with good reason... It had great acting, fascinating characters, and an intriguing storyline that drew you in and kept you interested. Admittedly, Season 2 had some big shoes to fill, but instead of continuing with their winning formula, the creators decided to make things exaggerated and overdone. The Season 2 characters are insincere, unlikeable and overdeveloped, with every possible problem, obsession and kink to make them appear edgy and dangerous. Instead they come off as silly and contrived. The acting is also atrocious, which is surprising coming from solid performers like Farrell and McAdams. Vince Vaughn is especially bad, and always appears as though he is doing a parody on SNL and will drop the punch line at any moment. Perhaps some of the bad acting can be blamed on the ridiculous script, particularly evident during the scene between Farrell's character and his attorney ("I welcome judgement."), and the one between McAdams and her father. You almost get the feeling that you are watching a B-movie worthy of Tom Sizemore and Steven Bauer, it's that bad. Even without high expectations, the second season is a big fail on all counts and will disappoint all but the undiscerning viewer.

Stitchers (2015–2017)

Show for Teenagers With Atrocious Acting

[1/10 · 23 June 2015]

This show is aimed at kids under 20 years of age. At least I hope that was the intended demographic, because if not, the creators are way off the mark. But even teenagers expect at least a minimal amount of entertainment value, which is completely lacking in this show. The lead actress is so bad, she must be related to the creator or one of the executive producers, because I cannot imagine a casting agent seeing her audition and thinking "Yes!! She's brilliant!!". The characters are not convincing, while the plot lines are light on imagination but heavy on predictability. The script is poorly written, with some truly cringe-worthy lines and scenarios. I cannot see this show attracting or keeping enough viewers. My prediction? Cancelled after the first season.

Complications (2015)

Suspension of Disbelief x1000

[2/10 · 19 June 2015]

First, let me preface this review by saying that I love Jason O'Mara, and "Life on Mars" is one of my favorite shows. But sadly, even this talented Irish actor cannot save the car crash that is "Complications". The storyline is simply not believable at all. There is no way that so many outrageous, ridiculous and implausible things could happen to an ER doctor, whether on or off duty. I know that ER staff see some crazy things during their careers, but the show just takes it way too far, to the point where it detracts from one's enjoyment of the show. Ironically, even though so many things are happening in the plot, the show itself is extremely boring. Despite O'Mara's strong performance, I will not continue to follow this series.

CSI: Cyber (2015–2016)

Is This a Real Show or a CSI Parody?

[1/10 · 17 April 2015]

Laughable acting, ridiculous scenarios, and an embarrassing lack of technical knowledge make this show seem like a parody of the CSI anthology. The chemistry between the ensemble cast is awkward, and the acting vacillates between laughable and embarrassing. I always have the impression that Patricia Arquette just woke-up and can't remember her lines or is reading them off of a cue card. James Van Der Beek is just as bad, delivering his lines as if he were doing a skit on SNL. The outrageous plot lines and pitiful dialog also make the show seem like a parody, and it boggles the mind why the show's writers would not have hired at least one technology expert as a consultant to make the scenarios even remotely plausible. CSI: Cyber loves to show the Internet as a scary and dangerous place, and hackers are portrayed as unethical losers who like to murder people for fun. This show should be canceled, but will likely be renewed based on the strength and reputation of its CSI predecessors. In any case, you will definitely lose IQ points every time you watch an episode, so view at your own risk!

Inherent Vice (2014)

Cannot Believe This Was Ever Released!

[1/10 · 15 January 2015]

This film is adapted from a novel of the same name by Thomas Pynchon. I admit that I have never read the book, but I can tell you that the film is so bad I actually wondered if director Paul Thomas Anderson was playing a joke on the audience!

First off, the film is slow-moving and boring. Even with an impressive cast (Joaquin Phoenix, Josh Brolin, Owen Wilson, Reese Witherspoon, Benicio Del Toro and Martin Short) the performances are lackluster due to poor character development and sleep-inducing dialogue. Not to mention, there are way too many times in the film where the actors are whispering or speaking under the breath. There is absolutely no need for this, and it makes many of the conversations difficult to follow.

The plot line is also lacking, which adds to the slow pace of the film. You continue to get the impression that the story is weaving a complicated tale of intrigue and suspense, with many interesting characters contributing. Sadly, nothing ever materializes. In fact, some of the characters that you think might pop up later are never seen again, leaving you wondering why they were ever introduced in the first place!

Another head-scratcher is why Anderson chose to use harsh, unflattering lighting throughout the film. It shows every flaw and makes the actors look tired and ugly. The only time he changes to "regular" film lighting is at the very end. Perhaps there is a reason for this and I just didn't catch it (like in Seven where the weather is dark and rainy the entire time until the end when he is enlightened and it is flooded with sunlight). Or perhaps he was trying to capture an authentic 70's feel,but unfortunately it comes off as either a mistake or the result of a terribly low budget.

If you smoke a lot of pot, you might enjoy this film but I'm not even sure. I think the book just didn't translate well into film format, or perhaps they simply had to leave out too many parts of the book to make the film worthwhile. In any case, I would say that this is one of the worst films I have ever seen!

Time Lapse (2014)

Actor Makes Film Unwatchable

[1/10 · 8 January 2015]

I will say straight away that I did not watch this film through to the end, so I cannot comment much on the plot. Why, you ask, could I not finish the movie? Because one of the actors is so awful, I simply couldn't take it anymore! The 3 main actors are not too bad - typical talent for an indie film. But the guy who plays the villain Ivan, Jason Spisak, is one of the worst actors I have ever seen in my life. His performance makes this film unwatchable, especially since he is in the majority of scenes that I viewed.

This terrible actor plays a violent bookie who cannot figure out why his regular customer has had a winning streak. The exaggerated delivery, the overly rehearsed and unnatural pauses, and even the forced body movements are so laughable that you cannot concentrate on anything else! He really is that bad! It's like he's trying to be Al Pacino or something, but without the raw talent (or any talent for that matter).

If bad acting doesn't bother you and you find the plot interesting, give it a try. But if bad acting really annoys you, skip this film!!!

Toast of London (2012–2020)

Absurd Comedy with a Brilliant Cast!

[10/10 · 13 November 2014]

I was already a fan of Matt Berry after seeing him in The IT Crowd, even though he wasn't a major character. But he really gets to shine in Toast of London, where he is both the writer and the star. His character, Steven Toast, is unsuccessful actor on the fringes of the profession. He is always finding himself in absurd situations and surrounded by silly characters, some of whom only last an episode. His agent Jane is a riot because she is always screwing up his bookings and putting him in humiliating situations. His arch-nemesis, Ray "bloody" Purchase, is also lots of fun, and since he's an actor Toast ends up seeing him all the time. But my absolute favorite scenes are when Toast is in the studio doing voice-overs. The 2 studio guys, including Clem Fandango, are outrageously funny. I look forward to these scenes every episode. I should also mention that each episode has a brief musical number, which seems to be the trend in absurd British comedies (Noel Fielding's Luxury Comedy, The Mighty Boosh, etc). If you like absurd comedy, I suggest giving Toast of London a chance. From the pilot episode, it just gets better and better. And it was renewed for Season 2 which is just as brilliant as the first!

And So It Goes (2014)

Has Rob Reiner become irrelevant?

[2/10 · 8 November 2014]

Let me start by saying that I love both Diane Keaton and Michael Douglas, and a film with the two together should have been a slam dunk. Although I didn't have super high hopes for this film, I was at least expecting it to be entertaining. Especially with Rob Reiner at the helm! Well, the film misses the mark on many levels. First, the storyline is sparse and boring. You will feel every minute passing by, even though they try to pack in as many characters as possible. The second fault is that the main characters are not likable or interesting. Douglas plays the stereotypical curmudgeon, and Keaton the hysterical and insecure older woman. Even these acting mavericks couldn't breathe life into these cardboard cutout characters. I get that this was targeted towards a more mature audience, but even Baby Boomers deserve an entertaining movie! The film needed a total rewrite of the script, and had they done that it wouldn't have been such a flop!

Noel Fielding's Luxury Comedy (2012–2014)

Surreal like an acid trip, but utterly addictive

[10/10 · 12 October 2014]

I've heard that if you take LSD seven times or more, you can be declared legally insane. I imagine that the same rule applies for the number of episodes you've watched of Noel Fielding's Luxury Comedy. The series does indeed seem like a very colorful and crazy acid trip. The use of strange costumes and animated backgrounds add to the surreal ambiance. As weird and bizarre as it is though, television actually needs more original and imaginative shows like this one. This series breaks the mold of formulaic comedies and predictable characters that have overtaken modern television. Noel Fielding brings you back to your childhood when your imagination roamed free. Although this certainly is not a show for children, it does have that unselfconscious and carefree attitude that kids have, living in their own world with no fear of judgment. When I viewed the first episode, I thought I would hate the series, but it is shockingly addictive and fun. No, you will not laugh out loud like you might with some comedy shows, but you will be curious to see what comes next. Fielding's creativity and unbounded daring will provide you with a viewing experience like no other. He also manages to completely change the format between season 1 and season 2 without destroying any of the show's magic. If you have an open mind and like things that go against the grain, give this show a chance. Once you've watched Luxury Comedy, I guarantee you'll find "normal" television shows boring and dull.

The IT Crowd (2006–2013)

One of the top 10 shows of all time

[10/10 · 10 October 2014]

The IT Crowd is brilliant thanks to not only Graham Linehan's clever writing, (he also wrote the Irish classic Father Ted), but also because the actors have such a great chemistry. Absurd scenarios and quirky, over the top characters are the signatures of this show. Chris O'Dowd has become a Hollywood star, but Richard Ayoade, Katherine Parkinson and Matt Berry are equally talented. Having them all together in one show is really a treat. I'm so glad they came back for a final episode to give the series closure. If you are fond of British humor, or you work in IT support, you should definitely give this show a try. In my opinion, it is in the top ten, (or even the top five), shows of all time.

Stalker (2014–2015)

Is this show trying to be ridiculous? If so, it deserves 10 stars!

[1/10 · 2 October 2014]

This show suffers from ridiculous dialogue, exaggerated plot lines and cookie cutter characters. I have no idea where the high IMDb ratings came from, because this show is so awful.

SPOILER!!!!!! (specific review of the first episode)

For example, the scene where the new detective (McDermott) is assigned to the stalking squad. It's his first day on the job and he is asked by his new superior (Maggie Q, playing the 'seen it a million times' tough, loner cop character) why he chose this particular unit. He answers "I was hoping to meet Scarlett Johansson." He doesn't seem to notice her disgusted reaction, and continues with jokes about training for the job by watching Fatal Attraction and other stalker films. NO ONE could be this stupid, especially a decorated detective!

But apparently he IS that stupid, because afterward he asks his new superior why she doesn't like him, and wonders aloud if maybe it was because he was staring at her chest earlier. In his defense, he explains that he really thought that she would be flattered that he was staring at her chest, because she was wearing red nail polish. Um, what???

The plot line of the first episode is equally ridiculous. It has 2 ordinary guys with good jobs (and who barely know each other), come together to stalk 2 different girls. They murder one girl and try to kill the other - by dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire. This isn't stalking, and I guess that the show writers can't come up with an original idea, because it looks like a storyline right out of Criminal Minds.

As if the show wasn't ridiculous enough already, you find out at the end of the first episode that the new detective to the stalking unit is a stalker himself. Yep! In fact that is why he took the new job, to be in the same city as the woman he is stalking.

If this show trying to be ridiculous, then it deserves 10 stars. Otherwise, they should cancel it and put it out of its misery as soon as possible.

***UPDATE***

Since I reviewed the show after only a single episode, I decided to give it another chance in case my opinion was too perfunctory. Unfortunately the second episode is not any better and confirms my original impression. McDermott's character is as creepy and oblivious as ever, and the storyline of the second episode was just as ridiculous as the first. As other reviewers have mentioned, the "stalkers" on this show are in fact murderers and kidnappers, so their cases would never be assigned to the stalker unit. The unit would also be investigating multiple cases at once, instead of assigning all of their agents to one case - imagine the backlog! There are also spontaneous confessions of the guilty parties which never happen in real life. This show is made for gullible teenagers - if that isn't you I'd skip it.

The Mysteries of Laura (2014–2016)

Unimaginative, predictable and BORING!

[1/10 · 18 September 2014]

The characters and plot lines of this show are predictable, unimaginative and BORING! Debra Messing was great in Will & Grace, but it seems her success was due to shared screen time and a terrific ensemble cast. Here, Messing takes the lead role, essentially carrying the show, and she just isn't charismatic enough to pull it off. The writing is just as bad, with plots that are insulting to anyone with even average intelligence. For example, while investigating a killing, Laura suspects that her boss is the murderer, even though she has no real evidence. Instead of confronting him directly or going to IA, she makes the accusations in public at the victim's funeral. Seriously?! There is zero entertainment value here, and I don't see this show being renewed for another season.

Moms' Night Out (2014)

Christian Values Film that Perpetuates "Hysterical Female" Stereotype

[1/10 · 16 August 2014]

Where to begin? This film is just so awful. It is a Christian values film at its core, which isn't for everyone. No, that isn't why the film is so bad. It's bad because every single joke falls flat, none of the characters are interesting or likable, and the scenarios they find themselves in are simply ridiculous. But the worst part is that the film continually perpetuates the "hysterical female" stereotype through the actions of its three female leads. Throughout the film, none of the women can keep it together, and instead turn into screaming, out of control, weeping, needy balls of mush every time something, really anything, doesn't go their way. For example, the main character has an aggressive nervous breakdown in a restaurant and makes such a disturbance that she gets kicked out. Why was she so upset? Simply because she made reservations for the wrong day. Really?! Another example is when the three women have to go to the police station to pick up family members. They come stomping in, scream at the duty officer, scream over each other, ignore the officer's commands to calm down, and then force their way to the back of the station. Not surprisingly, one of the women gets tasered and all three are arrested. I could go on and on. So how does God fit into all of this? Well the women seem to think that God wants them to be hysterical and out of control. As the main character says at the end with a big smile on her face - God made her to be a mess. Apparently God wants this film to be a mess too, and He should be pleased with just how much of a mess it is.

Delivery Man (2013)

Remake that was poorly cast

[4/10 · 8 March 2014]

As some other reviewers have already mentioned, this is a remake of a Canadian film called Starbuck. Without going into the advantages and disadvantages of remaking a film, I would say that this version could have been a lot more enjoyable with a different cast.

When casting a remake, it's important to find actors that really capture the essence of the original characters. If they wanted to preserve the magic of the original, they should have cast someone like Jason Segal for the lead role. Vince Vaughn is too old for the character to be believable, and his comedic delivery falls flat throughout the film. SNL's Bobby Moynihan, who plays one of Starbuck's brothers in the film, would have been better served playing the friend/lawyer role played by Chris Pratt. Pratt's performance also falls flat, and he is too handsome and charismatic to play a fumbling and insecure misfit. Canadian Cobie Smulders plays the role of the girlfriend, but her boring performance fails to bring any spark to the character. It would have been more interesting to have someone more feisty, like Kristen Bell, Katheryn Winnick or Teresa Palmer.

Vince Vaughn is really awful in this film, perhaps because the role requires both comedic talent AND acting skills, and he has the former but not the latter. Or maybe he was just phoning it in to get a paycheck, who knows. Either way, his unenthusiastic performance sinks this film and takes everyone else down with him.