Change Your Image
jasonod-45364
Reviews
Chaos on the Bridge (2014)
Genius vs. Hollywood
It's apparent that Gene Roddenbery wasn't 100% by the time TNG rolled around. However, I would say the bigger problem with TNG had to do with the jackace who claims Roddenberry was nuts for wanting no conflict between the crew members and all the other Hollywood no-talents that agreed with jackace's conformist TV views. It's been a couple of years since I watched so exact name I forget but some typical Hollywood moron in this was claiming Star Trek should be like every other TV show. The only reason this once cancelled show is still a phenomenon today is it wasn't like every other show on TV. Crew members should hate each other, stab each other in the back, call each other names and apparently come to blows every week because that was 80's TV was this no-talent's argument. This is going along with all other Hollywood no-talents with their totally insane "making it more realistic" garbage we've heard for years. You can't make the easter bunny "more realistic". It's like claiming had the easter bunny starred in the Die Hard movies instead of Bruce Willis, the easter bunny would be a believable action hero and gotten more action movie roles. You can not make the already unrealistic Star Trek set hundreds of years in the future "realistic" by using current conformist, overused, beyond boring garbage that Hollywood copycats use in dramas set in the 1980's or any time up until now. Giving this Hollywood hack so much screen time and Shatner sort of being persuaded he was right is like if this jackace had asked why do we need Hobbits in Lord of the Rings since Hobbits don't exist or why is there magic in Harry Potter when magic doesn't exist. It's a beyond insane exercise and shows a beyond simple mind for this jackace and Shatner and anybody who buys the garbage. Warp drives and the planet Vulcan don't exist so why should Earthings getting along be so outrageous in a totally made up future that doesn't exist anyway? Nothing makes Superman, an alien, more realistic. Nothing makes Star Wars, in a galaxy far, far way, more realistic. And wanting TNG crew members to be Jerry Seinfeld, George Costanza, Cosmo Kramer and Elaine Benes "friends" who actually hate each other and argue all the time doesn't make Star Trek more realistic either. The conflict was supposed to come from the Romulans, Ferengi, Cardassians, etc. so this simple-minded jackace and Shatner basically calling the genius Roddenberry insane for wanting Earthlings to get along in the future is beyond a waste of time. I enjoyed hearing from other TNG cast members, Shatner not a cast member but always giving his 2 cents anyway, but this is a middle of the road 5. Anybody giving it a 9 and 10 isn't a Star Trek fan and are in fact calling Roddenberry a hack and calling this conformist, no-talent, no ideas, simple-minded, complaining, typical Hollywood jackace the genius. Shame on all you phony fans.
The Truth Is in the Stars (2017)
Waste
This doc alleges to be about how Start Trek affects others. However, it's at least half Shatner talking about himself, things then and now, instead of actual interviews. He cuts people off in order to talk about himself, both making fun of himself and tooting his own horn. Apparently Shatner is afraid fans don't know what he thinks about Star Trek from the fourty-three hundred and seventy-one other Star Trek docs he's said this stuff in for 30+ years already. Did you know he loves horses? Minutes spent early on showing him driving on his ranch and kissing a horse in case you didn't hear about his horse fetish in 85 to 90% of the previous docs and in all the making of docs on all the Star Trek movies where he rode a horse(s). Did you know Shatner loves horses? I don't know if you heard the past 50 years other than the 5,000 times you've heard, William Shatner has a horse fetish. 15 minutes in and we've seen Shatner sit in a Captain's chair, be denied entrance because he didn't have a ticket to the Star Trek exhibit (very unfunny), playing with a Captain Kirk doll and oh, yeah, he loves horses in case you haven't heard that before. He love horses folks. Folks, he loves horses. Ben Stiller, the first person not Shatner, shows up over 11 minutes in then we see Shatner telling Stiller, a maniac Star Trek fan, things Stiller (and everybody else) already knows instead of letting Stiller finish any thought on how Star Trek affected him, affected Ben Stiller, not The Big Giant Head William Shatner. If you love egomaniac William Shatner, you'll love this, if you love hearing the same stories you've heard him tell 5,000 times before that is. If you're expecting an actual doc on how Star Trek affected anybody other than Shatner, don't hold your breath.
A Day at the Races (1937)
Groucho always, Chico sometimes, Harpo never
Up until recently I had only watched 4 Marx brothers movies. Having now watched all the movies with Chico, Groucho and Harpo I'm wondering how even way back then anybody thought Harpo playing the harp for several minutes in all but one movie was a good thing. Not even counting the total waste of time harp playing, Harpo is a near worst ever waste of TV or movie time character I've ever seen in the way too unfunny scenes he destroys with his stale after one movie act. Who was ever a Harpo fan in Earth's history? Is it the same 9 people who claim Shemp is a funnier stooge than his brother Curly? Anyway, I found out that most of their movies can't even be saved by great Groucho scenes and lines and none of the rest are anywhere near as good as this movie. Would be a 9 if Harpo had never been born.
The Short History of the Long Road (2019)
Typical
Critics would have you believe independent movies are usually better than most big budget movies. In fact, very few independent movies are interesting, let alone good, let alone great. Most are like this movie. They take 20 or less minutes of actual story and stretch it to 90 or more minutes. I was going to detail and put a number count on all the many stretches but that would be spoiling, as if this beyond boring movie shouldn't be spoiled, and it would take way too long to name them all seeing how 90% of this alleged movie is stretching scenes. In a nutshell, constantly nothing happening scenes where the totally mundane is shown with music playing instead of dialogue. This 500 dollar budget movie may have taken it to a new level however since even the very, very few times and spread out times the totally uninteresting characters are speaking to each other, they're still taking long pauses, whispering or talking very slowly. This is barely ahead of A Quiet Place in word count and 10 times worse and 100 times more boring than that bad movie. I'm having a hard time thinking of a more boring, nothing happening movie I've watched in my 50 years. The one review I can see as I write this claims a 10 out of 10 and Sabrina Carpenter "crushed this role". Sabrina is in practically every shot in this movie and says and does less in 90 minutes than any 20 something minute episode of Girl Meets World where she isn't in every scene. Hard to "crush" a role when you're not acting but simply eating, sitting, driving, walking, reading, writing or staring 90% of the movie. Being a Sabrina fan isn't an excuse for a ridiculous 10 out of 10 when many people don't give Schindler's List or Titanic 10 out of 10. Watch paint dry or listen to golf on the radio. Both will be far more interesting and exciting than this movie.