Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Bad film even when not compared to the first two
3 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
There are some generous reviewers on here who claim that if not compared to the two "Godfather" movies that came before, this movie is not so bad. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Although the begining of the movie is promising, with Michael Corleone now a much older man with fully grown kids, the introduction of Vincent quickly brings the film downhill into a structureless plot full of nonsense conspiracies and assassinations, which unfortunately have very little connection to anything that made the first two "Godfather" movies great (and that's not even the main reason why it's bad).

As mentioned by numerous reviewers--even by those who gave this a high score--the acting is truly horrendous. But it's not just Sofia Coppola. Even though her scenes really stand as some of the most amateurish, even Al Pacino isn't good in this. Take the scene where he's repenting for all of his murders in the first two movies. There's really no indication in this scene that the real Al Pacino is thinking about anything else except his paycheck. I didn't believe for a second that this was the real Michael Corleone feeling bad for killing his brother. What's even more horrific is that I couldn't even believe that this was an actor trying to play Michael Corleone. I had no idea what was going through Pacino's head when he was doing this movie.

Coppola clearly needed the money, otherwise he wouldn't have agreed to make a third 'Godfather.' I think the historical context on which this was based would have made for a very interesting Vatican movie outside of the "Godfather" timeline. Coppola probably could have released this film with the same title, "The Godfather: Part III," without Al Pacino, but then almost nobody would have went to see it.

The only reason this gets three stars is because we at least get a small insight into what could have happened to Michael Corleone years after the events of the second movie. Unfortunately, when he does finally tip over as an old man and dies, it's figuratively not the first time we see his death.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Surprisingly watchable
5 September 2017
As someone who's never truly liked a Tarantino movie after 'Pulp FIction,' I was amazed to have actually enjoyed this. While it starts out really slow, and I found myself thinking for the first hour that it was some failed sequel to 'Django Unchained' (which I was not a big fan of), the movie really picks up in the second half as it slowly begins to reveal to us where all these characters came from and why they all ended up in the mess that they're in.

Jennifer Jason Leigh, who I always thought was a very talented actress, steals the show here. Her character, Daisy Domergue, is truly the most hateful of the eight. Kurt Russell and Samuel L. Jackson true to form, and the other actors don't slouch either. The dialogue is well- written, and while the pacing sucks in the first half where Tarantino takes too long to set up the story, he's entirely forgiven when he produces a very watchable second half.

If there's any serious criticism I can have is that by the time we reach the last twenty minutes, it does feel entirely like the ending of 'Reservoir Dogs'; but considering that this is a Tarantino movie, that's to be expected. I'm just glad he supplied the viewers with enough interesting characters, dialogue, and situations to make this, for me, one of his most watchable movies in over twenty years.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great show, even if historically inaccurate
3 September 2017
I'm a big Bruce Lee fan, own a few of his biographies, and have read a lot about his life on the Internet. Judging by some of the past reviews, I know this series is not going to please the die-hard fanatics who insist that every facet of his life be represented accurately on the screen. Most hardcore Lee fans know, for instance, that Bruce Lee was injured in the gym in 1970, not in the Wong Jack Man fight as portrayed in this series.

However, despite many historical inaccuracies, this is still a great and watchable drama. I feel like if I want to learn more about Bruce Lee's actual life, then I'll stick to firsthand sources like Leo Fong and Linda Lee. But if I want to be entertained by a series which features very skilled acting, directing, incredible pacing (each episode focuses on a small event in the fictional Bruce Lee's life and gives appropriate time to each of these segments), this is not the worst show for that.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Great show!
7 August 2005
Only today have I seen all eight episodes of this hilarious show and I love it! Although I can imagine it being a solid show if continued, I think eight episodes is just the right number of episodes to quit on before it gets too repetitive. What I love about the show is how Trey Parker and Matt Stone don't focus as much on politics as they do on parody of situation comedies, ranging from "All in the Family" to "Friends." (Best example of this is episode seven, where the common sit-com plot of getting characters stuck in a small space to settle their differences is in effect.)

The sit-com spoofs are done very well and I think it would be overkill if it focused too much on Bush, since I'm sure Trey and Matt wouldn't mind doing it with any president. The characters, while formulaic, are developed very well, and you get to feel for them not as real people in the world, but as fictional characters, giving you a chance to take a break from all the political wars between all kinds of people in the Bush years. If you have a sense of humor and don't mind removing your political affiliation away for the viewing pleasure of the show, I suggest you go get the DVD!
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
GameSpot TV (1998–2022)
The reviews are good, but the jokes are so stupid.
13 July 2005
While I would not consider myself to be a very enthusiastic gamer, I do enjoy video games. From time to time, in the very rare occasion that I watch television, I watch this show. I like the reviews, but the thing is, the whole show is full of all these lame and unoriginal and stupid jokes. They are really aimed more to be the "hip" kind of stupid and random jokes and usually take no thought at all, but idiots from the culture that I could never identify with would probably enjoy them. I wouldn't even complain as much about the kind of humor the show had if it wasn't basically the whole premise of the show.

For instance, from time to time, there are these sketches, one where Adam Sessler pretends to be the main character from the game, "Splinter Cell." In the sketch, he captures people from behind and takes them all into a bathroom cubicle. The problem with this sketch is that, while it's supposed to be silly, is so painfully unoriginal. Any fan of "Splinter Cell" with a sense of humor could think of that and even the writers know it.

Skits like that are not even as painful to me as having to hear all these stupid jokes narrated by either Adam Sessler or Morgan Webb (always in the stupidly sarcastic dialect) during the reviews. Being sarcastically insulting is alright once in a while, but they apply this technique in so many reviews that it's usually hard to tell whether they like a game or not. At one point, Adam Sessler reviewed the latest "Dynasty Warriors" game and seemingly insulted it so much that I was sure it was going to get a 1/5, but actually got a 3/5. It is obviously just very hard to tell whether they're serious or not when reviewing a game, what with them being so sarcastically insulting, so I'd just like the writers of the show to drop that crap already.

Occasionally, they will also make childish jokes about a character in a game, like a character called Cao Pi in a game they were reviewing... Which is pronounced like "cow pee." Yes, at first, it probably sounds at the least remotely funny, but it was milked so much in the review that I couldn't stand it. At one point, they kept playing the audio for when the voice actor for the character said "I am Cao Pi," and Adam Sessler even milked it more by saying, "Yeah, we KNOW." And even after the review was over, Morgan Webb and Adam Sessler kept talking about it. They'll never let a stupid childish joke die, apparently.

Another annoying thing is when they use the Animutation-like technique of moving the mouth of a person (usually celebrity) or animal and make them say obnoxious and annoying crap that only idiots such as the writers would find funny. Usually they consist of the Beatles talking to each other. Once again, part of the stupid random humor, the bad kind where no thought is included for the jokes.

Here's what I think -- The show needs to really tone down on humor, especially the blatantly stupid kind, tone down on the sarcastic insulting, and especially tone down on the skits. Then it will probably be a watchable show, with more reviews than anything. I mean, come on -- I doubt even the hosts like to say the stuff that they are made to say.
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed