cheesus-895-673869
Joined Jan 2014
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews9
cheesus-895-673869's rating
This is pure vileness. A guy "oozes" his way into the life of Deanna Troi. How did she even let this walking slime enter her room, let alone her life. He is disgusting.
I would say this episode just ruins her strong character. "Oh you have big blue eyes... therefore I will sleep with you!" I do not think any thought went into this episode at all. It is a disgrace.
If there is anything in the episode, it is totally ruined by this tacky "character". I use the word "character" loosely. He is more like a cartoon caricature.. It basically just revolves around smut. It is like a bad porn movie with no actual sex scenes.
The scene involving Riker is pretty pointless. The fact that Troi even considered this guy palatable is amusing at best. Vomit bags at the ready for this episode.
I would say this episode just ruins her strong character. "Oh you have big blue eyes... therefore I will sleep with you!" I do not think any thought went into this episode at all. It is a disgrace.
If there is anything in the episode, it is totally ruined by this tacky "character". I use the word "character" loosely. He is more like a cartoon caricature.. It basically just revolves around smut. It is like a bad porn movie with no actual sex scenes.
The scene involving Riker is pretty pointless. The fact that Troi even considered this guy palatable is amusing at best. Vomit bags at the ready for this episode.
This is an interesting movie because it is actually quite good in comparison to 80s action movies... but it is a 90s movie. It is fairly easy to see why people like it or hate it.
1. It is just an 80s style action movie with a somewhat more cerebral quality/ topic. 2. Even though it is a serious topic - it was handled in a way that is quite absurd. 3. It actually has better production values than most 80s action movies. 4. There are at least 2 good actors (both baddies: John C. McGinley and Michael Caine). They are good (as always) but their script makes them over the top. They are still quite fun to watch though and, as always, shine as great actors. There is even a quite funny/ silly little cameo for Billy Bob Thornton, small role for Mike Starr and a type cast role for R. Lee Ermey of Full Metal Jacket fame. 5. The story verges on the point of being so silly that it is actually fun to watch! It is no more absurd than Commando though. 6. People don't like Seagal because they find him narcissistic and preachy. Seagal acts better than Arnold Schwarzenegger but people LIKE Arny much more. Seagal acts (possibly) even better than 80s Stallone... but people LIKE Stallone (both Rambo and Rocky). 7. If you like martial arty types of stuff then this is pretty fun. If you like the shooty/ explosions stuff then it is also quite fun. 8. It is another portrayal of native American culture (Inuit in this case) that is reminiscent of the Star Trek Voyager Chakotay kind of thing. If the mumbo jumbo/ woo woo way of portraying native Americans/ Inuit culture annoys you... this will probably annoy you too!
Bottom line: It is a reasonable 80s style "good vs evil" action movie. It is low rated because of the somewhat absurd story-line and dislike of Seagal. If you look past those and just watch it as a typical 80s action flick, you should enjoy it.
I would give it 6.5 if I could, but I have rounded it up to 7.
1. It is just an 80s style action movie with a somewhat more cerebral quality/ topic. 2. Even though it is a serious topic - it was handled in a way that is quite absurd. 3. It actually has better production values than most 80s action movies. 4. There are at least 2 good actors (both baddies: John C. McGinley and Michael Caine). They are good (as always) but their script makes them over the top. They are still quite fun to watch though and, as always, shine as great actors. There is even a quite funny/ silly little cameo for Billy Bob Thornton, small role for Mike Starr and a type cast role for R. Lee Ermey of Full Metal Jacket fame. 5. The story verges on the point of being so silly that it is actually fun to watch! It is no more absurd than Commando though. 6. People don't like Seagal because they find him narcissistic and preachy. Seagal acts better than Arnold Schwarzenegger but people LIKE Arny much more. Seagal acts (possibly) even better than 80s Stallone... but people LIKE Stallone (both Rambo and Rocky). 7. If you like martial arty types of stuff then this is pretty fun. If you like the shooty/ explosions stuff then it is also quite fun. 8. It is another portrayal of native American culture (Inuit in this case) that is reminiscent of the Star Trek Voyager Chakotay kind of thing. If the mumbo jumbo/ woo woo way of portraying native Americans/ Inuit culture annoys you... this will probably annoy you too!
Bottom line: It is a reasonable 80s style "good vs evil" action movie. It is low rated because of the somewhat absurd story-line and dislike of Seagal. If you look past those and just watch it as a typical 80s action flick, you should enjoy it.
I would give it 6.5 if I could, but I have rounded it up to 7.
