Reviews

The show had the feel of a clueless guidance counselor incorrectly believing he or she really understood young people. It always had a message, but the delivery seemed wrong. One example was a moment James seemed to be getting close to a girl & his friend gushed, "You have just replaced John Travolta as the hero of my life!" At the time Travolta was popular among girls, but not straight guys. The people doing "James..." seemed to be the only ones who didn't know that. Everyone I spoke to thought the show was silly. TV critics praised the show at the time, as if none of them remembered what it was really like to be young.

A lot of reviews here are based on agree / disagree status. Trying to get beyond that.

I really wanted to hear something of interest here. Instead all I heard was generalizations.

Is Jon Stewart's point-of-view wrong? Can't say since he brought so little to the discussion.

Fan of the show, but WTF was that episode?

Everyone is yelling at someone for little or no reason. If that's all relevant to the show then there's too much going on. But, but it really seems pointless.

I'll suggest a maximum of two conflicts in an episode, preferably a primary & secondary.

All these squabbles don't make for a coherent story line.

Dramas with messages about social matters are typically preachy. Not this one! Brings the viewer right into the story to identify with the main character. Not surprising to learn there's an autobiographical aspect since it all felt completely personal. Tells a great story and makes you care about the educational system at the same time. 10 stars from me. This is one of the best shows I have ever seen.

Good story with interesting characters, but every discussion in this series escalates into a shouting match or worse. Does not seem like behavior of people who have succeeded in national television news. The intrigues are unusually complicated and risky, more like something in a spy thriller. Gave it six stars. If things were toned down, I would have given eight.

It's a teen drama with plenty of drugs, sex, and nudity, including full-frontal male. Even by HBO standards, that's pushing the envelope. Personally, I'm not opposed, far from it. But this is a teen show with lots of content unsuitable for teenagers. So, the question is who is HBO's intended audience? Teenagers flouting their parents rules? Or older audience members looking to see some young (mostly in very good shape) bodies?

Big fan of good complex European tv series. Seen plenty of them. The Paper. Lots of characters, all with various allegiances and motives. Edgy story. This would be great if I'd never seen something like this before. But mid-way through the 3rd episode, I realized it was an effort to keep track of everybody and my interest was seriously flagging. Wish this offered an innovation I haven't seen before.

Everything I like in a European tv series. Great production values, interesting characters, good performances all around. Sometimes there's too much of a good thing. There are a few characters I'm not recognizing, and plot elements I can't follow. Liking the main plot, presuming I'm getting it all.

Convoluted plot with too many characters, lacking any coherent theme. What's this about? Corporate intrigue? Family loss? Sibling rivalry? Adultery? Environmental issues? Stalking? Police corruption? Drug abuse? Some of the elements listed had no resolution. Final episode had to put "solutions" on screen in the form of flashbacks since nothing could be easily explained otherwise. Murder mysteries with an edgy female lead and good cinematography are a dime-a-dozen these days. This added nothing to the genre.

Starts out interesting. Police procedural with a family aspect to it. About halfway through, things start to turn ridiculous. There's the usual transgender aspect that appears in stories like this. By the end, the story is entirely sick and implausible, you feel like the writers were just pushing things to extremes for no good reason.

The focus of the film is a bizarre character portrayed by James Franco. (Good performance by the way, James) All the character's strange traits take our attention, but don't do anything for this film. Backstory, a mystery. Motives, hard to say. Every aspect of the plot could have been done with a normal character, which leaves me wondering what the point was. Maybe with a normal character, I could have focused on the story & given this film some better appreciation.

Lost me when they brought their campaign to young straight people, some of the people at the lowest risk for HIV.

This movie has some great musical scenes, which are the film's best asset, but also the problem.

The plot's not that substantial, relationships ending/beginning, with discussions about selling out in the music industry. Nothing new here. Things always perk up when the music starts.

Everyone seems to play music really well without any apparent rehearsals. All the characters are cool and have a great rapport with one another. No one's shy about dancing. Could I call this anti-realism?

I almost felt someone took a porn script, substituted music for the sex, and made this film.

Clearly, there's an important message in this film about how are agricultural policies are impacting society.

The participation of Oscar-winner Jeff Bridges raises some questions. Let me explain why.

In the 70's Jeff Bridges was one of the celebrity faces of the controversial est program developed by Werner Erhard. (Real name, John Rosenberg.) Erhard also created the Hunger Project, whose agenda was to fight hunger through est-like thinking on the part of hungry people.

The film mentions an international hunger program inspired Bridges to start the End Hunger Network, without naming the Hunger Project.

So the question is, how much Erhard/Hunger Project content is in "A Place at the Table?" Given all the front groups they've used, and the filmmakers non-disclosure on Jeff Bridges' involvement, it's impossible to say.

This film covers a huge number of tobacco topics going ankle-deep on each one, while providing the audience with a mini-biography of scientist Victor DeNoble. The weaselly libel suit against ABC is mentioned in a manner missing all details. Dr. DeNoble is shown opposing the multi-state settlement, but his reasons are not presented. Congressman Ron Wyden appears as a tobacco opponent without disclosure that he ultimately sold-out the cause via the industry- friendly Rose-Wyden "compromise". Philip Morris' Steve Parrish was interviewed for the film and is portrayed uncritically as the architect of the ostensible reforms of the tobacco industry.

Of course, it's impossible to include every possible detail about your subject in a documentary with a standard runtime, but consider this. I don't remember hearing the word "cancer" once in this documentary about the tobacco industry.