semacore-76427
Joined Sep 2018
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews6
semacore-76427's rating
For almost anyone who studied french in high school in Quebec in the 80s one of the standard books was "La Dynamite" about driving a truck with unstable nitroglycerine across treacherous terrain and bumpy roads.
This is basically that but with guns and over acting.
Now Georges Arnaud wrote "Le Salaire de la peur" in 1950 so it's more likely that our "La Dynamite" was a copy of that, but it was amusing.
Beyond that, it's not a great film, mediocre at best, but it is mindless late night viewing. Maybe it was because the story was so familiar in general but everything about this movie was overly predictable.
This is basically that but with guns and over acting.
Now Georges Arnaud wrote "Le Salaire de la peur" in 1950 so it's more likely that our "La Dynamite" was a copy of that, but it was amusing.
Beyond that, it's not a great film, mediocre at best, but it is mindless late night viewing. Maybe it was because the story was so familiar in general but everything about this movie was overly predictable.
I eagerly anticipated the release of this film, as I am an avid consumer of anything even remotely connected to David Bowie.
Regrettably, what unfolded on the screen can only be described as a cinematic disappointment (celluloid being a term of the past). It not only managed to offend dedicated Bowie enthusiasts but also fell short in delivering a compelling cinematic experience.
Johnny Flynn's portrayal was lackluster at best. Regardless of the fact that his appearance bore little resemblance to Bowie's, even if he were embodying a wholly fictional character, his performance left much to be desired.
The film itself trudged along, an arduous journey that proved to be quite the task to endure. Its pacing felt sluggish, and I found myself struggling to maintain interest.
When placed alongside the caliber of biopics dedicated to other musical legends like Elton John and Freddie Mercury, Stardust pales in comparison. Granted, it's an uneven juxtaposition, but even without considering that, the film's shortcomings remain glaringly apparent.
Regrettably, what unfolded on the screen can only be described as a cinematic disappointment (celluloid being a term of the past). It not only managed to offend dedicated Bowie enthusiasts but also fell short in delivering a compelling cinematic experience.
Johnny Flynn's portrayal was lackluster at best. Regardless of the fact that his appearance bore little resemblance to Bowie's, even if he were embodying a wholly fictional character, his performance left much to be desired.
The film itself trudged along, an arduous journey that proved to be quite the task to endure. Its pacing felt sluggish, and I found myself struggling to maintain interest.
When placed alongside the caliber of biopics dedicated to other musical legends like Elton John and Freddie Mercury, Stardust pales in comparison. Granted, it's an uneven juxtaposition, but even without considering that, the film's shortcomings remain glaringly apparent.
As a fan of the previous show and someone who has seen they first two episodes ... the show is just not good.
But it could have been.
This was a rocky start at best and the writing kind of sucks.
I think the problem is that they tried to stay too true to the original show (right down to the set) when even the original wouldn't really work anymore.
Melissa Rauch is good but the writing of her character is just stupidly written and tries to establish WAY too much in the first 2 episodes.
Same with Larroquette. Is this really where a now 70ish Dan Fielding ended up? Really? I am not looking for anything intellectual here but at least something remotely realistic.
Many of the other characters are broad caricatures and the few stereotypes I imagine they could get past the censors.
They didn't even bother to update the sets.
On the whole this could have been a great show, with this cast, if it was approached in completely different way.
It would have been nice to see what the people behind something like Parks and Rec or Brooklyn 99, or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia could have done with it.
But it could have been.
This was a rocky start at best and the writing kind of sucks.
I think the problem is that they tried to stay too true to the original show (right down to the set) when even the original wouldn't really work anymore.
Melissa Rauch is good but the writing of her character is just stupidly written and tries to establish WAY too much in the first 2 episodes.
Same with Larroquette. Is this really where a now 70ish Dan Fielding ended up? Really? I am not looking for anything intellectual here but at least something remotely realistic.
Many of the other characters are broad caricatures and the few stereotypes I imagine they could get past the censors.
They didn't even bother to update the sets.
On the whole this could have been a great show, with this cast, if it was approached in completely different way.
It would have been nice to see what the people behind something like Parks and Rec or Brooklyn 99, or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia could have done with it.