6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Shepherd (I) (2023)
4/10
Didn't make much sense to me
10 December 2023
From a common sense point of view, the movie doesn't make much sense to me.

1. Secondary compass is a standard device for a pilot since forever.

2. Electrical failure doesn't equate to conpass failure. Especially in the pre-digital era, the compas and altimeter would still work with the engine off and now power. Same with speed meter. They were purely mechanical devices based on earth's magnetic field, pitot tube (dynamic/static pressures), air density/pressure/temperature. Fuel gauge also used to by purely mechanical back then, and that one seemed to work till the very end.

3. The behaviour of the pilot doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like he never went through any common sense training. If you have any sort of issues with the plane's controls early in your trip, you don't push forward for your destination, you get back and land.

4. If you have compass and altimeter failure and see a cloud front, you avoid it at all costs.

5. Basic training also covers (to this day) star and sun nativation. Yes, if you know the time and date, you can easily determine with good precision the cardinal points and navigate to land. It doesn't make any sense that he starts doing "triangle formation" over the see when he still had plenty of fuel. You find land at all costs and try to find an empty field or road or something. Given the full moon he had during that night, it should have been really easy. It absolutely doesn't make any sense to ditch over water with land km away.

6. Also, the way he tried to "save fuel" didn't make much sense to me either. If you want to maximise endurance, you basically have to fly at minimum power which still keeps you in the air while gliding the plane. Each plane has a different maximum endurance envelope/settings and it's a combination of engine settings, flight controls settings, altitude and speed - no "triangle formation" required.

7. Overall - absolute rubbish. The entire movie doesn't hold water from a technical point of view. The existence of ghosts is more believable to me than that pilots' behaviour.
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
HARDtalk (1997– )
2/10
What kind of pathetic british joke is this?
29 March 2023
I'm was watching this joke and I'm thinking...who came up with this guy presenting? His entire behaviour screams bs and colonialism. A very poor incarnation of a waste of time. He has no respect for his guests, he doesn't wait for a complete answer from jis guests, he talks over them, he interrupts the guests, he is antagonizing his guests and his entire approach is just condescending. Why do you keep him? Did you lost a bet or something? Is he doing his homework before the talks or he is just making it up as he goes along? I have watched this joke several times and it's always the same rude and umpleasant experience.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Emily in Paris (2020– )
1/10
Absolute garbage
22 October 2020
So much garbage in this movie, if they would recycle it, they would save the planet!
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mine (II) (2016)
1/10
So so bad
18 October 2019
This is a bad movie, there's no question here. Nothing intriguing, just some handsome actors and a pretty face constantly self-involved with their average "daddy" issues. No substance, no meaning, no talent.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Wolfman (2010)
1/10
really low production values
22 April 2019
Really low production values? how do I know? they would write - Romani language - but the actors would not actually speak the Romani language. They didn't even bother in checking the wikipedia article on what Romani language is like. very very bad quality movie.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Frequency (2016–2017)
1/10
interesting beginning, poor follow up
18 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I thought this would be a good show after the first three episodes. But my first impression was ruined by the bad depiction of the characters - awful depiction.

Basically the idea of the show breaks down after the first few epsiodes. Why?

1. Why is she refusing to talk to her mom in the past. Just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The plan was to convince her mom to stop being such a b and start taking better care of herself. Two people could do a better job at convincing her then one who can barely articulate a full sentence (her father).

2. Why does nobody tell her mother that she is a target of the serial killer? I just cannot fathom a good reason.

3. The mother is a b****. Very self involved, very hard headed, very impolite and always up to pick a fight with that estranged husband of hers.

4. I actually lost the show and stopped watching it at episode number 4. Her had's reaction to how he tried to capture the serial killer was absolutely beyond belief. I mean, apparently some policemen cannot capture a serial killer even if they get info on who he is from the future - just your typical US police men. Instead of tracking and following the guy, instead of putting a tail on him (he was officially part of the nightingaile police team, instead of cornering him with an entire SWAT team, that piece of junk policemen runs after his car with his badge out and his gun around the moment he spots him. That's just really really bad police work.

I gave up on this show that exact moment.

Interesting idea but very very poor and lacklustre implementation. Waste your time with something else.

Kind Regards
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed