MickyG333
Joined Aug 2009
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.
Badges6
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings1.7K
MickyG333's rating
Reviews1.4K
MickyG333's rating
8.0 stars.
This show never lost my interest. I was fixed to the screen from start to finish. Perhaps 15 minutes of episode 2 got a bit repetitive, but that's all. Episode 3 carries this show beyond anything on Netflix for sure. It's an amazing, non-stop psychological thrill-ride for 45 minutes. I was astonished at how impactful it was on my own emotional state. Episode 4 (finale) was almost as grand, especially as things escalate. The gravity of the situation and how it affects the family is portrayed so effectively. It was so realistic I felt like I was there, and it reminded me of tense moments when I was growing up, the drama, family dynamics, disappointment, sentimental feelings, and how a happy and fun moment with your family can instantly spiral into bedlam.
I'll start off by saying this series is absolutely riveting, start to finish. I would normally rate something like 'Adolescence' higher, but it's not a show that you rewatch multiple times. At least not for me. I suppose it's a bit like 'Chernobyl' in that respect. I've wanted to rewatch 'Chernobyl' for a couple years, and I think I'll have the same sentiments with this. I'd watch both shows more than once, but not without a generous gap of time in between.
Therefore, 'Adolescence' is difficult to rate, because I usually watch anything 8.0 or higher every year, so it's an outlier in my ratings scheme.
This show never lost my interest. I was fixed to the screen from start to finish. Perhaps 15 minutes of episode 2 got a bit repetitive, but that's all. Episode 3 carries this show beyond anything on Netflix for sure. It's an amazing, non-stop psychological thrill-ride for 45 minutes. I was astonished at how impactful it was on my own emotional state. Episode 4 (finale) was almost as grand, especially as things escalate. The gravity of the situation and how it affects the family is portrayed so effectively. It was so realistic I felt like I was there, and it reminded me of tense moments when I was growing up, the drama, family dynamics, disappointment, sentimental feelings, and how a happy and fun moment with your family can instantly spiral into bedlam.
I'll start off by saying this series is absolutely riveting, start to finish. I would normally rate something like 'Adolescence' higher, but it's not a show that you rewatch multiple times. At least not for me. I suppose it's a bit like 'Chernobyl' in that respect. I've wanted to rewatch 'Chernobyl' for a couple years, and I think I'll have the same sentiments with this. I'd watch both shows more than once, but not without a generous gap of time in between.
Therefore, 'Adolescence' is difficult to rate, because I usually watch anything 8.0 or higher every year, so it's an outlier in my ratings scheme.
7.2 stars.
When I was young, I saw this several times and always enjoyed it immensely. I played baseball since I was seven years old and watching 'The Natural' back then made me feel like I wanted to play harder. It was an inspiring film for me. But now 40 years later, it's not quite the same. It's an epic story, but it's long and slow in a way that reminds me of many films of that era.
In contrast to the slow pacing, the acting is absolutely superb and the cast is dynamic. There are some great actors showcased in 'The Natural', it feels like a movie that crosses over three generations of Hollywood. There are a few actors from the 1940s and 50s era, several from the 60s, 70s and 80s (Redford included in that group) and also a few that weren't fully recognized until the 90s and early 2000s (primarily the two lead females).
It's a film that bridges the gap of several eras of cinema, while at the same time feels like a classic from the 50s or 60s in presentation, cinematography and dialogue. It is set in the 1930s and 40s, so it makes sense that they captured the essence of that era, but they did it very well. If I had to guess when this film was made, I probably wouldn't even be close. There really isn't any particular aspect of it that points toward any specific decade, but if I had to guess, I'd say probably 1995 (and I'd be off by a full decade). It's way ahead of it's time, but that's the risk they took.
In being such a dynamic and timeless story, it loses some of the quicker pacing that audiences are accustomed to these days. Did I enjoy watching it again? Perhaps the first half, but when it got really drawn out and deliberate with the baseball scenes, I feel like the director was milking it a bit much. On the other hand, I don't want to cast a shadow on this wonderful classic, arguably one of the best baseball films of all time. I would have rated it as a 8.6 thirty years ago.
When I was young, I saw this several times and always enjoyed it immensely. I played baseball since I was seven years old and watching 'The Natural' back then made me feel like I wanted to play harder. It was an inspiring film for me. But now 40 years later, it's not quite the same. It's an epic story, but it's long and slow in a way that reminds me of many films of that era.
In contrast to the slow pacing, the acting is absolutely superb and the cast is dynamic. There are some great actors showcased in 'The Natural', it feels like a movie that crosses over three generations of Hollywood. There are a few actors from the 1940s and 50s era, several from the 60s, 70s and 80s (Redford included in that group) and also a few that weren't fully recognized until the 90s and early 2000s (primarily the two lead females).
It's a film that bridges the gap of several eras of cinema, while at the same time feels like a classic from the 50s or 60s in presentation, cinematography and dialogue. It is set in the 1930s and 40s, so it makes sense that they captured the essence of that era, but they did it very well. If I had to guess when this film was made, I probably wouldn't even be close. There really isn't any particular aspect of it that points toward any specific decade, but if I had to guess, I'd say probably 1995 (and I'd be off by a full decade). It's way ahead of it's time, but that's the risk they took.
In being such a dynamic and timeless story, it loses some of the quicker pacing that audiences are accustomed to these days. Did I enjoy watching it again? Perhaps the first half, but when it got really drawn out and deliberate with the baseball scenes, I feel like the director was milking it a bit much. On the other hand, I don't want to cast a shadow on this wonderful classic, arguably one of the best baseball films of all time. I would have rated it as a 8.6 thirty years ago.
7.6 stars.
I've seen all the Karate Kid movies, this one isn't the worst. It's an interesting (but not original) spin on the franchise. A Kung-Fu kid comes from Beijing, is more American than the Americans he befriends, yet speaks Mandarin to boot.
He likes a girl, she appears to be Italian, she works for her father in his Pizza Shop in Queens (I think it's Queens). Father used to be a boxer, now he has debts he needs to pay and must fight off a bunch of hired ruffians to buy time to get the money. It all goes south. And there is a strange interplay of the young Chinese boy helping the man regain his fighting skills by utilizing some Kung-Fu techniques. It's all a little odd.
But the boy is dealing with a bully of his own, a tough guy with a bad attitude. He happened to date the pretty Italian girl in the past, but she's not interested in him anymore, he's a creep. Sound familiar? It's way too much like the original Karate Kid, with a few twists, yet it follows the same trope: skinny underdog boy meets girl...girl dated big bad muscle bound bad guy...underdog inevitably must fight bad guy in a tournament.
Other than the usual stuff, this film is entertaining enough. I mean there are some big actors in this, Jackie Chan, Ralph Macchio, and even a cameo at the end.
I've seen all the Karate Kid movies, this one isn't the worst. It's an interesting (but not original) spin on the franchise. A Kung-Fu kid comes from Beijing, is more American than the Americans he befriends, yet speaks Mandarin to boot.
He likes a girl, she appears to be Italian, she works for her father in his Pizza Shop in Queens (I think it's Queens). Father used to be a boxer, now he has debts he needs to pay and must fight off a bunch of hired ruffians to buy time to get the money. It all goes south. And there is a strange interplay of the young Chinese boy helping the man regain his fighting skills by utilizing some Kung-Fu techniques. It's all a little odd.
But the boy is dealing with a bully of his own, a tough guy with a bad attitude. He happened to date the pretty Italian girl in the past, but she's not interested in him anymore, he's a creep. Sound familiar? It's way too much like the original Karate Kid, with a few twists, yet it follows the same trope: skinny underdog boy meets girl...girl dated big bad muscle bound bad guy...underdog inevitably must fight bad guy in a tournament.
Other than the usual stuff, this film is entertaining enough. I mean there are some big actors in this, Jackie Chan, Ralph Macchio, and even a cameo at the end.
