privategalender

Any questions you may have about the film after watching the previews absolutely WILL not be answered. The previews are the film. I'm all for leaving the ending of a film open for interpretation, but not the beginning, middle, and end. I gave it two stars because I didn't shut the film off, I watched through to the end where she looks upon the "newborn" and smiles..... Oh, technically, telling you she smiled upon looking at the newborn is a spoiler, LMAO Anyone telling you the movie is nothing more than the trailer is leaving "spoilers" in their review.

How freaking RIDICULOUS IMDB that the above review is too short.

If you're not a fan of "dumb comedy," some more kindly refer to it as "slapstick comedy " you should NOT watch this without FIRST watching the trailer. If you dislike dumb comedy and watch this imagining you are about to watch a "rom-com" or "sci-fi" you are unlikely to enjoy the film and may feel compelled give it a low rating.

I'm not a fan of dumb comedy and usually do not watch it. However, I do frequently enjoy sci-fi, therefore when Hulu showed this on their home page I checked out the details--the short blurb did not sound like sci-fi so I watched the trailer.

The trailer made it fairly clear the genre HULU gave the film: Comedy, Science Fiction Movie, was not really an accurate genre, but until the film industry is prepared to add the genre "slapstick rom-com" to their list of genres I guess it was the best HULU could do if they have no real control over the details page of films they do not own. ALL THAT is to say: IT IS NOT SCI-FI. But these days, with the plethora of movies to watch--why would ANYONE WATCH a movie without first watching the trailer?

Granted, sometimes trailers can be deceiving, or worse, vomit all the best parts of a film--but if you choose not to watch a trailer when you have strong dislikes (like slapstick) and you're in the mood for a "good comedy" and you watch THIS, didn't you bring that disappointment on yourself? FURTHER, if you CONTINUED WATCHING after the first 16 minutes of the film-- which makes CLEAR what "genre" the following 70 minutes of the film falls into--then you come here and give the film a bad rating and/or review--what does that say about you?

AND ALL THAT IS TO SAY: not being a fan of slapstick I went into this movie with my eyes wide open. With the expectation that I'd probably watch less than 30 minutes before getting on with my day; and that I might or might not resume watching the movie later.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO WASTE EVEN that amount of time I did a quick check of the ratings and reviews here before committing to giving it a try. Luckily there were a few reviews that said, for THE TYPE OF MOVIE the film was presenting, it was very good. So I hit play and expected a short watch as I really had things I should be getting done. Do. Atched the entire movie in one sitting.

I watched the whole movie, indeed it was good "for the type of film" IT WAS MEANT TO BE! Aspects of it that I imagined (from trailer) would be BAD actually unfolded better than I expected--other parts WERE what I expected, but I wasn't turned off as IT WAS INDEED, expected!

I TOTALLY DISAGREE with the reviewer that stated the male lead was totally unlikable--maybe my expectations of the character were lowered due to that review, and because I was prepared to be turned off, I was instead pleasantly surprised.

Give the film a shot, if you hate the first 16 minutes, stop watching and find something more to your liking. It CERTAINLY deserves more than its aggregate rating of 5.5, but I don't believe in giving a film a higher rating simply to balance out undeserved 1-2 star reviews, however rounding up, rather than down, was appropriate in this case. The rating aggregate should be a solid 7.

There are only two things this show has in common with the show it "spun off from," and neither of those things are enough for the majority of Rookie fans to even begin to enjoy this show.

Like the ROOKIE, the main character made a career change late in life, etc., and

The basic premise of the show and the writing feels similar to the original except it veers off like a caricature drawing of someone you know: in a good caricature drawing you can clearly recognize the person in the drawing, but every feature on the person's face is ridiculously exaggerated.

I believe, having watched SIX FULL EPISODES, I gave the show more of a chance than the other ROOKIE fans that quite FAIRLY gave the show a low rating. When I came here to rate the show I planned on giving it THREE STARS, and then leaving. But I became curious and began reading reviews.

The first couple dozen I read were all negative reviews and were in line with some of my thoughts on the series. I decided to head to the opposite end of the reviews and had IMBD show me positive reviews. I found it difficult to believe at first that ANYONE BELIEVED THE SHOW DESERVED 10 STARS, but I began to notice those reviews were from FANS OF MS. NASH, aaaaahhhhh. They were not fans of the original show!

Those people knew what they were getting into when they tuned in, THEY WERE NOT MISLEAD by the creators of the show!

I guess the creators wanted things both ways, or to STACK THE VIEWERSHIP DECK. I decided to give it one extra star for fans of Ms Nash, but rookie fans: SKIP IT.

I just removed it from HULU "My Stuff" list so I won't waste my time just because it's there telling me a new episode is available!