mistiqe
Joined Mar 2006
Badges48
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews9
mistiqe's rating
"Nobody Wants This" is a title that unintentionally sums up the experience of watching it. What could have been an engaging drama about modern relationships quickly devolves into a tedious parade of clichés, flat characters, and painfully forced dialogue. The show feels designed for an audience desperate for background noise rather than meaningful storytelling.
From the outset, the plot drags with little direction or emotional depth. Scenes linger far too long on mundane conversations that go nowhere, and when something finally happens, it is either predictable or laughably overdone. The pacing is sluggish, and the script leans heavily on tired tropes about midlife crises, gossip, and shallow domestic drama. The supposed twists are so contrived that they evoke eye rolls rather than surprise.
The characters fare no better. Each one feels like a cardboard cut-out, written without a hint of originality or growth. The lead, who is meant to evoke empathy, instead comes across as whiny and insufferably self-absorbed. The supporting cast exists purely to move the plot along, offering little substance beyond one-dimensional quirks and melodrama.
Perhaps the most grating aspect is the dialogue, which swings between painfully awkward and unintentionally comedic. Lines that are clearly meant to sound profound instead land with the subtlety of a bad soap opera. Watching adults exchange such stilted, cringe-inducing exchanges is uncomfortable at best.
Overall, Nobody Wants This lives up to its unfortunate title. It's a dull, lifeless series that mistakes drawn-out conversations and empty drama for emotional depth. It might pass as harmless afternoon television for bored housewives seeking distraction, but for anyone else expecting engaging writing or memorable performances, this show is an easy skip.
From the outset, the plot drags with little direction or emotional depth. Scenes linger far too long on mundane conversations that go nowhere, and when something finally happens, it is either predictable or laughably overdone. The pacing is sluggish, and the script leans heavily on tired tropes about midlife crises, gossip, and shallow domestic drama. The supposed twists are so contrived that they evoke eye rolls rather than surprise.
The characters fare no better. Each one feels like a cardboard cut-out, written without a hint of originality or growth. The lead, who is meant to evoke empathy, instead comes across as whiny and insufferably self-absorbed. The supporting cast exists purely to move the plot along, offering little substance beyond one-dimensional quirks and melodrama.
Perhaps the most grating aspect is the dialogue, which swings between painfully awkward and unintentionally comedic. Lines that are clearly meant to sound profound instead land with the subtlety of a bad soap opera. Watching adults exchange such stilted, cringe-inducing exchanges is uncomfortable at best.
Overall, Nobody Wants This lives up to its unfortunate title. It's a dull, lifeless series that mistakes drawn-out conversations and empty drama for emotional depth. It might pass as harmless afternoon television for bored housewives seeking distraction, but for anyone else expecting engaging writing or memorable performances, this show is an easy skip.
I went into Splitsville hoping for a clever, biting take on modern relationships, but came away feeling deeply disappointed. Despite its trendy premise of open marriage and romantic entanglements, the film never earns its emotional stakes or dramatic turns.
What works (a few): Visually, the movie can be appealing - cinematography and production design occasionally offer pleasing frames, and there are moments of decent comedic absurdity. A few individual jokes land, especially when the male leads' insecurities are pushed to extremes. The pacing is brisk, which helps keep things from dragging entirely.
Major cons (why I rate it so low):
1. Emasculation writ large.
The film seems intent on reducing its male characters to caricatures of weakness, desperation and ineptitude. Rather than a nuanced exploration of vulnerability, Splitsville often feels like a smug humiliation of men - as if the only interesting role for them is to be mocked.
2. No character depth.
None of the four leads are truly developed. The women are especially short-changed: Julie and Ashley rarely transcend their roles as reflections of the men's conflicts. The film treats them as plot devices rather than full people with inner lives. Even where there is tension, it never feels earned - we don't know enough about anyone to care. (Many critics have noted this same failing.)
3. Dakota Johnson playing "Dakota Johnson" Her performance feels so comfortably in type that she brings no surprises. Julie is essentially a variant of roles we've seen her play before - cool, composed on the surface, emotionally stormy underneath - but here she's underwritten, so the trope becomes stale rather than intriguing. Critics have similarly pointed out that her character is manipulated more than developed.
4. Self-indulgent, smug tone.
The movie frequently seems to expect us to laugh merely because these characters are clever, edgy, or tortured - but it never bridges the gap between the cleverness and the humanity. At times it feels like watching its creators showing off rather than telling a story.
In summary: Splitsville is a visually polished mess whose ambitions outstrip its execution. It never builds enough empathy or insight to make its ideas resonate, and instead leaves you feeling hollow.
What works (a few): Visually, the movie can be appealing - cinematography and production design occasionally offer pleasing frames, and there are moments of decent comedic absurdity. A few individual jokes land, especially when the male leads' insecurities are pushed to extremes. The pacing is brisk, which helps keep things from dragging entirely.
Major cons (why I rate it so low):
1. Emasculation writ large.
The film seems intent on reducing its male characters to caricatures of weakness, desperation and ineptitude. Rather than a nuanced exploration of vulnerability, Splitsville often feels like a smug humiliation of men - as if the only interesting role for them is to be mocked.
2. No character depth.
None of the four leads are truly developed. The women are especially short-changed: Julie and Ashley rarely transcend their roles as reflections of the men's conflicts. The film treats them as plot devices rather than full people with inner lives. Even where there is tension, it never feels earned - we don't know enough about anyone to care. (Many critics have noted this same failing.)
3. Dakota Johnson playing "Dakota Johnson" Her performance feels so comfortably in type that she brings no surprises. Julie is essentially a variant of roles we've seen her play before - cool, composed on the surface, emotionally stormy underneath - but here she's underwritten, so the trope becomes stale rather than intriguing. Critics have similarly pointed out that her character is manipulated more than developed.
4. Self-indulgent, smug tone.
The movie frequently seems to expect us to laugh merely because these characters are clever, edgy, or tortured - but it never bridges the gap between the cleverness and the humanity. At times it feels like watching its creators showing off rather than telling a story.
In summary: Splitsville is a visually polished mess whose ambitions outstrip its execution. It never builds enough empathy or insight to make its ideas resonate, and instead leaves you feeling hollow.
Foundation offers a visually engaging journey through a sprawling sci-fi universe, with scenery that helps establish its futuristic settings quite effectively. While not always flawless, the production design and visual effects create a believable world that supports the story without overwhelming it.
The storytelling is ambitious, adapting Isaac Asimov's complex saga into a layered narrative that sometimes feels dense but often succeeds in keeping viewers intrigued. The pacing can be uneven, but the series generally manages to balance its big ideas with character-driven moments, which adds some emotional weight.
Acting performances vary, with the lead delivering a solid portrayal that grounds the show's more abstract concepts. Some supporting actors bring welcome depth, though a few characters come off as underdeveloped, leaving their motivations a bit unclear.
Where the show stumbles most noticeably is in its approach to casting. There's a clear, almost mechanical attempt at ticking demographic boxes, which occasionally undermines the authenticity of the world. In a galaxy where faster-than-light travel and psychohistory are accepted without question, the most jarring fiction ends up being the idea that every institution and culture has been carefully curated for maximum contemporary optics. Rather than feeling inclusive, it often feels oddly artificial - like a diversity committee crash-landed on Trantor. Representation matters, but subtlety matters too.
Overall, Foundation is a thoughtful and occasionally compelling adaptation that sci-fi fans might appreciate for its ideas and setting. It's not without its flaws, but it carves out a respectable place among contemporary science fiction series.
The storytelling is ambitious, adapting Isaac Asimov's complex saga into a layered narrative that sometimes feels dense but often succeeds in keeping viewers intrigued. The pacing can be uneven, but the series generally manages to balance its big ideas with character-driven moments, which adds some emotional weight.
Acting performances vary, with the lead delivering a solid portrayal that grounds the show's more abstract concepts. Some supporting actors bring welcome depth, though a few characters come off as underdeveloped, leaving their motivations a bit unclear.
Where the show stumbles most noticeably is in its approach to casting. There's a clear, almost mechanical attempt at ticking demographic boxes, which occasionally undermines the authenticity of the world. In a galaxy where faster-than-light travel and psychohistory are accepted without question, the most jarring fiction ends up being the idea that every institution and culture has been carefully curated for maximum contemporary optics. Rather than feeling inclusive, it often feels oddly artificial - like a diversity committee crash-landed on Trantor. Representation matters, but subtlety matters too.
Overall, Foundation is a thoughtful and occasionally compelling adaptation that sci-fi fans might appreciate for its ideas and setting. It's not without its flaws, but it carves out a respectable place among contemporary science fiction series.
