GBDaddy Reviews

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013–2020)

Off to a rocky start

[4/10 · 12 October 2013]

A 5-rating for me is something I might or might not watch again. EDIT: This has been lowered to a 4 (details below).

The concept of the show is clearly something that many would desire, particularly due to the popularity of the Avengers, et al. The subject matter for episodes with espionage, etc. could be a lot of fun.

However, special effects and gun battles can't be the only thing to make a show last. The acting in this show is considerably sub-par. That might have to do with the writing and / or directing. The dialog is extremely corny, or targeted toward simple minds. It seriously detracts from interest in watching the show...it makes me not want to sit for another episode to continue being slashed at with doggedly-poor lines and cheesy choreography.

The character development was also slung together with little thought...rushing it to get to the "good stuff". Several of the characters are over cliché, particularly the nerd-twins and the CIA- like operative.

I'll still watch a few more episodes with the hopes that they'll dial in some better quality dialog and reduce the cheese factor. If not, then I think they'll whittle away much of their core audience (those who like the craftier and wittier interactions of the films driving people to this show). EDIT: Results below.

Everyone is different, so I definitely would not say to avoid this show. But if you like writing that keeps you on your toes, yet ties into reality a bit, you might agree with my assessment.

EDIT: 2013-12-02

I have now watched through episode 9. This show did not improve. The cheesy dialog has remained, and actually worsened. They even feel the need to explain their jokes...simple ones! It's likely a bad joke, if the punchline needs to get jammed down your throat. It's not so funny when the moment is ruined with phrases like "See what I did there?", "Get it"?, etc.

Olympus Has Fallen (2013)

Unrealistic, poorly written slop

[3/10 · 6 September 2013]

It seems that some producers still feel that special effects and guns-a-blazing are all that are necessary for a film to be successful.

I don't want to give spoilers (although, honestly, maybe I should), so giving examples of the unbearable lack of realism in this film can't be done. However, anyone with any knowledge on military, police and Homeland Security will quickly recognize the baloney spewed forth throughout the film.

If that wasn't bad enough, the choreography of battle scenes was atrocious. "Hey everyone. Line up and stand there like dolls while you get shot."

However, where this film lacked in realism and creativity, it made up in unnecessary gore. Not the fun gore you see in classic zombie flicks, but graphic violence that adds nothing to the film beyond a head shake of disbelief. Actually, there was one scene where I thought there were zombies on the White House lawn.

The plot? OK...ummm...yea. One man saves the day....big time. Move over Chuck Norris! (no meme for you today)

The only purpose of recommending this film to anyone would be to say "See?" If you have nothing else to do....sleep. Skip it.

Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010)

Shaun of the Rednecks

[7/10 · 21 July 2013]

For this type of film (aka quasi-zombie movie):

1. The casting and acting really added to this movie. Even the small-role actors were awesome in their spots. Facial expressions fit perfectly. 2. The filming (angles, fades, zooms, etc.) was better than appropriate and made it exciting. It also helped bring in the funny.

The same exact story could have been done with a different set of people and typical horror filming, and it could have been a dud. But, the right combination made this for a quality, humorous, extremely fun movie that I would watch again more than once (which moved it up to a 7 for me...that's not common either).

If someone says "Move over Shaun of the Dead"...they should be slapped. This movie does not even come close to the terrific wit of SotD, but the stupid, redneck humor and all other components make it the W. Virgina version of SotD. Different, but right on par with quality and entertainment value.

Pain & Gain (2013)

Surprising Film - Not What I Expected

[6/10 · 29 June 2013]

I wasn't thrilled with the movie, but that doesn't mean it was not good. Actually, I think this film had incredible substance, due particularly in part to the casting. I would have given it 7 stars, but the length of the film took it down a notch (they could have knocked off 14-19 minutes worth of unnecessary, and sometimes boring footage).

The film started off with Wahlberg seeming to be just like Wahlberg. But, long story short, he and the film evolved to a character that fit him (and vice versa). Based upon the plot, I think it was a good match.

Dwayne Johnson is not brand new to drama, but this was a different kind of role nonetheless. I don't feel he was 100% there, but his likable character makes you just ignore it. I think with a few more roles like this, he'll be better.

I'm not that familiar with Mackie, but he did a great job in his role. Apart from Shalhoub, he was probably one of the most believable characters. He made me think of a subdued and more serious version of Mike Epps.

Shalhoub....well, what can you say about this guy? He was awesome in Monk, and his style is always great. He is a talented actor and the casting of him was a solid choice. He has that goof look to him, yet his face can show some noteworthy seriousness. This was no Giamatti being cast as a thug...Shalhoub can pull off a "tough guy" pretty well.

I've always been fond of Ed Harris, but his role was insignificant. Same for Corddry.

All in all, this was a well-made film deserving to be watched. I doubt I would ever watch it again due to it's slow development at times, but I'm glad I did see it. The casting was unexpected and unique.

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

Reasonably Entertaining

[4/10 · 28 June 2013]

I like both Owen and Giamatti. However, that's not enough to give Shoot 'Em Up a grandiose review. Granted, this film is meant to be farcical, so you expect a little bit of cheese, but the supporting characters were a bit over the top. Worse, though, was Giamatti's role. It was extremely out of place and out of character (even for this type of film). If Owen and Giamatti had swapped roles, it might have delivered better (given the contrasting oddity of the characters).

Nevertheless, the film progressed rapidly enough to keep cheese from molding. So, there really wasn't much opportunity to sit and dwell on the funky parts. The fast pace kept you into the film fairly well, too. The music fit the style, and the direction and sets were appropriate.

I'd say it's worth watching, but likely won't be remembered by most.

Grindhouse (2007)

Hudson Hawk - Stupendous Role for Willis compared to Planet Terror

[3/10 · 23 June 2013]

It is rare to find a film with so many cameos that will end up on the bottom of their filmography. But, Rodriguez managed to pull it off. Planet Terror was so un-entertaining, I actually felt queasy sitting through so much boredom. There was absolutely NOTHING entertaining in it. But, wait! The grainy 70's effect of the film made it exciting, though...right? Umm...no. Planet Terror could not even saved by the mighty Mary Jane.

Death Proof was significantly better, but it, like Planet Terror, had acting appearances by QT...which was Pure Terror. Why does he even try? He's atrocious at acting and always has been. The story line was the typical twist you see by QT, but it lacks any noteworthy wit that would make it entertaining beyond action. It also has the typical overkill that can be seen in nearly all of QT's previous films (which have gone dramatically downhill after PF & RD).

If you're bored, you probably can find some enjoyment from Death Proof. However, stay far far away from Planet Terror unless weight loss from nausea is an objective.