msbensley-44529
Joined Dec 2018
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.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews10
msbensley-44529's rating
No doctor would diagnose a patient based on a single observation, so why allow reviewers post diagnoses based on an unfortunate first episode.
Yes, there is a strong similarity to House, M. D.. This is called Watson (like House, the surname of the lead) because the lead is supposed to have been Sherlock Holmes former sidekick. Ignore the time warp from 1890 to 2025.
The scrip/plot improve significantly after the first episode, and Watson becomes a much more appealing character than House ever was. This isn't a criticism of Hugh Laurie, House was seldom written to be an appealing guy. House was hardly ever in on the joke; Watson always is, and Morris Chestnut is excellent, drama and humor.
If you haven't seen Watson yet, skip the pilot and start with episode 2. Watch the pilot later for background.
Yes, there is a strong similarity to House, M. D.. This is called Watson (like House, the surname of the lead) because the lead is supposed to have been Sherlock Holmes former sidekick. Ignore the time warp from 1890 to 2025.
The scrip/plot improve significantly after the first episode, and Watson becomes a much more appealing character than House ever was. This isn't a criticism of Hugh Laurie, House was seldom written to be an appealing guy. House was hardly ever in on the joke; Watson always is, and Morris Chestnut is excellent, drama and humor.
If you haven't seen Watson yet, skip the pilot and start with episode 2. Watch the pilot later for background.
The acting in Oppenheimer is outstanding, from the top of the cast, through supporting actors, to the nearly and actually uncredited.
Unfortunately, Christopher Nolan felt it necessary to remind us that the film is about The Bomb every three minutes. The special effects were very well done, but maybe deserving of its own Oscar (who's going to out-soecial-effect an atomic bomb?)
Apparently Nolan didn't trust his cast enough to carry the film, which was a huge error. Nolan's direction of the cast, and their performances would have been enough to win a Best Picture without any more than a single flash of light and a BOOM. Let's just hope the incessant booms and overexposures don't wear out the Oscar committee.
Unfortunately, Christopher Nolan felt it necessary to remind us that the film is about The Bomb every three minutes. The special effects were very well done, but maybe deserving of its own Oscar (who's going to out-soecial-effect an atomic bomb?)
Apparently Nolan didn't trust his cast enough to carry the film, which was a huge error. Nolan's direction of the cast, and their performances would have been enough to win a Best Picture without any more than a single flash of light and a BOOM. Let's just hope the incessant booms and overexposures don't wear out the Oscar committee.
This idea had some potential, but the writing, acting, CGI don't add to the score.
The decisions made by characters make "Let's hide behind the chain saws!" look brilliant.
As far as acting, there's more mugging here than in Central Park after dark.
The CGI is on the level of The Clash of the Titans (1981).
Apparently, they've made five episodes. We'll see if they all air.
The decisions made by characters make "Let's hide behind the chain saws!" look brilliant.
As far as acting, there's more mugging here than in Central Park after dark.
The CGI is on the level of The Clash of the Titans (1981).
Apparently, they've made five episodes. We'll see if they all air.