alan-51-111974
Joined May 2011
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.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings57
alan-51-111974's rating
Reviews34
alan-51-111974's rating
Sean Hayes is a very talented man and he works very hard in this. He has to because it's largely like a terrible parody of U.S. 90s sitcoms. If only it were a parody.
Most of the characters are TV clichés or racial tokens (one "Asian", one black guy). The plot for each episode is jammed in our faces as if otherwise we'd be too stupid to understand it: "My daughter needs her first bra!". Hilarity ensues, except it doesn't, it's truly truly painful.
Cue laugh track, then cue it again and again. The less I smile and the more laughter I hear the more depressing the whole thing becomes.
The supporting cast is a mixed bunch which range from a wooden spoon with a face drawn on it wearing a kitchen mop for hair (Megan Hilty) through to performances of genuinely twisted comedic genius from Tom Lennon.
That was really my point about a good show within a terrible one. Every scene with Tom Lennon in it seems to come from a different place than the rest of the show, a much improved place where the show is actually funny.
I sat stony-faced through the pilot yet laughed out loud at some of the Tom Lennon scenes. Whether I can continue to grit my teeth waiting for those moments is debatable.
It feels like being in a wheelchair having lost the use of your legs, with NBC looking down at you and saying in a very loud, slow, voice... "Are you alright down there? Can I get you anything? Do you want to go to the toilet? Do you want to hear a funny joke?".
I may be sitting down, but I'm not deaf and I'm not an idiot, please stop treating me as such.
If they could build on the Hayes-Lennon core a bit more (they're great together) focus less on the been there, done that ha ha ha feel of the rest of it, perhaps try to give some dimension to the characters of the other actors then this could really be something.
Most of the characters are TV clichés or racial tokens (one "Asian", one black guy). The plot for each episode is jammed in our faces as if otherwise we'd be too stupid to understand it: "My daughter needs her first bra!". Hilarity ensues, except it doesn't, it's truly truly painful.
Cue laugh track, then cue it again and again. The less I smile and the more laughter I hear the more depressing the whole thing becomes.
The supporting cast is a mixed bunch which range from a wooden spoon with a face drawn on it wearing a kitchen mop for hair (Megan Hilty) through to performances of genuinely twisted comedic genius from Tom Lennon.
That was really my point about a good show within a terrible one. Every scene with Tom Lennon in it seems to come from a different place than the rest of the show, a much improved place where the show is actually funny.
I sat stony-faced through the pilot yet laughed out loud at some of the Tom Lennon scenes. Whether I can continue to grit my teeth waiting for those moments is debatable.
It feels like being in a wheelchair having lost the use of your legs, with NBC looking down at you and saying in a very loud, slow, voice... "Are you alright down there? Can I get you anything? Do you want to go to the toilet? Do you want to hear a funny joke?".
I may be sitting down, but I'm not deaf and I'm not an idiot, please stop treating me as such.
If they could build on the Hayes-Lennon core a bit more (they're great together) focus less on the been there, done that ha ha ha feel of the rest of it, perhaps try to give some dimension to the characters of the other actors then this could really be something.
This is not a comedy, not a horror and not a thriller, let's get that out of the way.
It's a dark love story of astonishing honesty and beauty and one of the finest films I've seen in recent years.
It's uncompromisingly honest in a truly refreshing way with incredibly nuanced and powerful performances by David Hoyle and Ashley Stryder.
The settings and cinematography are excellent, as is the original score and songs.
This is a film that doesn't tell you how to think or feel about it... it creates a web of emotions and possible interpretations that are perhaps more beautiful left unresolved.
Despite the story arc, my strongest impression was of the joy of simple pleasures.
I absolutely loved it.
It's a dark love story of astonishing honesty and beauty and one of the finest films I've seen in recent years.
It's uncompromisingly honest in a truly refreshing way with incredibly nuanced and powerful performances by David Hoyle and Ashley Stryder.
The settings and cinematography are excellent, as is the original score and songs.
This is a film that doesn't tell you how to think or feel about it... it creates a web of emotions and possible interpretations that are perhaps more beautiful left unresolved.
Despite the story arc, my strongest impression was of the joy of simple pleasures.
I absolutely loved it.
I'm Welsh, so forgive me if I fail the US spell-check.
Firstly I'm bewildered, amused and dismayed by many of the comments: "Funny British Accents" (they're English accents), followed up by "Would be OK in Trainspotting II" (which is a Scottish film with Scottish accents), yes there are three countries in Great Britain. It's not called Great because it's great, it's to distinguish it from Brittany in France, formerly known as Little Britain after some Britons fled the Saxons and colonised the area. There's a bit of history for you.
Then we get into the historical accuracy of it all... and "Vikings" is held up as a better example, when most of "Vikings" is historically wrong.
Unlike "Vikings" this is a fantasy, it's not supposed to represent history, it's also not a Hollywood film, it's a "British" (English) one, that's why everyone talks with a "Funny British Accent".
There's also a fair amount of Old English and a snippet of Old Welsh, I don't think I've heard those languages used on film before.
It's main flaws are in trying to pander to the U.S. market (make it simpler and dumber)... yet it has strong performances throughout, a great lead in Charlie Bewley, fantastic settings, a solid although somewhat bipolar score, solid cinematography and a half-decent script.
People lap this stuff up in Game of Thrones yet as soon as you fix something which is obviously a fantasy to a point in history it get's pulled apart?
It's a solid 7. I'd have given it a 6 yet I find my patriotism roused by indignation at ignorance.
If you want to find something that completely lacks historical accuracy, only happened a couple of hundred years ago yet is revered as a great film, please watch Lincoln.
Firstly I'm bewildered, amused and dismayed by many of the comments: "Funny British Accents" (they're English accents), followed up by "Would be OK in Trainspotting II" (which is a Scottish film with Scottish accents), yes there are three countries in Great Britain. It's not called Great because it's great, it's to distinguish it from Brittany in France, formerly known as Little Britain after some Britons fled the Saxons and colonised the area. There's a bit of history for you.
Then we get into the historical accuracy of it all... and "Vikings" is held up as a better example, when most of "Vikings" is historically wrong.
Unlike "Vikings" this is a fantasy, it's not supposed to represent history, it's also not a Hollywood film, it's a "British" (English) one, that's why everyone talks with a "Funny British Accent".
There's also a fair amount of Old English and a snippet of Old Welsh, I don't think I've heard those languages used on film before.
It's main flaws are in trying to pander to the U.S. market (make it simpler and dumber)... yet it has strong performances throughout, a great lead in Charlie Bewley, fantastic settings, a solid although somewhat bipolar score, solid cinematography and a half-decent script.
People lap this stuff up in Game of Thrones yet as soon as you fix something which is obviously a fantasy to a point in history it get's pulled apart?
It's a solid 7. I'd have given it a 6 yet I find my patriotism roused by indignation at ignorance.
If you want to find something that completely lacks historical accuracy, only happened a couple of hundred years ago yet is revered as a great film, please watch Lincoln.
Recently taken polls
1 total poll taken
