Reviews

BATTLE= An (armed) conflict between opposing groups

WAR= A STATE OF ARMED CONFLICT BETWEEN 2 (OR MORE) OPPOSING GROUPS...

The film opens with a Battle, it closes with a battle and all between 2 sides are opposing each other with force.... PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE TITLE WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES IS MISLEADING.

People also seem to have missed the point that the film is about the effects of war and how LEADERS often must fight their own internal war between doing what is best for their people and what is best for them personally, and how opposite those things truly are when you're fighting a war.

I just don't understand what people wanted or were expecting. Did you think you were gonna see Platoon but with Apes? That'd would've been dumb and completely against what P.O.T.A. has always been about..... Name me a single P.O.T.A. movie (with exception of that Tim Burton piece of crap) that was more about fight scenes than about the themes of the franchise(and if you say Battle for POTA, the movie was about the Watts riots caused by racism, and regarded as arguably the worst)

This film, while certainly the weakest of the new tilogy, was still pretty darn good and effective. It also PERFECTLY sets up a new remake of the original and I can't wait to see it.

Most sequels, especially nowadays, are made more for an attempt to cash in on the popularity of the original rather than being made because there is another genuine story to tell with these characters. This is not the case for Trainspotting 2, this story most definitely falls in the latter.

Trainspotting is one of my all time top 5 favorite movies, and I have waited 20 years to SEE a sequel. I was hyped but skeptical when they announced it, as sequels nowadays tend to be pretty bad. But Danny Boyle and the original cast have done something really special, they have come up with a near perfect reunion and goodbye for these characters. Blending the (literary sequel) "Porno" into it and not making it into a direct adaptation was the smart move (just as giving the original movie a clearer narrative was). Not only is it a great sequel, but it's a great movie (which few sequels strive to be)

However, the 1 things that is absolutely killing me is this.... the original trainspotting was set in the late 80's. This movie takes place 20 years later yet it is present day 2017, it's 30 years later.

-Decorated Veteran

-(In a land devoid of natural resources) Mastered Agricultural

-(In a land devoid of natural resources) Mastered Aqua-engineering

• Established a working system of government and economics (literal trickle down economics)

-Opened trade with other lands

• Provides health care to employees (war boys)

-Equal opportunity employer. Employees the disabled (blind), terminally ill (war boys), and (single) mother's (mother's milk). Does not discriminate when it comes to promoting (disabled) women

Don't believe the hype or the rave reviews. While technically a good film, it is very boring and a victim of its own "cleverness" and pretentiousness. It's sense of "originality" is because it's lifting from other movies (like the ones in the title).

Amy Adams is sure to receive another Plain Jane (weak year) Oscar nomination, possibly win. But every other actor seems bored and phoning it in.

As I said technically a good 7 star movie, but I know I'll never watch it again and should've waited until I could see it for no more than a $3 rental.

I was 14 when ID4 came out, even then I could tell the glaring flaws and faults in writing, directing, acting, etc. But I didn't care, it was the 1st blockbuster popcorn disaster movie I had ever seen in theater with no adults, I saw it 4 times that summer. I've watched it every single year since then between July 2-4. As a grown up I knew when they announced the sequel that (especially with this writing/directing team) it was never going to live up to the 1st one, how could it? I didn't care, it was still one of my most anticipated movies of 2016. I just hoped that it wouldn't end up being one of the worst sequels EVER. But it is, it really is.

The movie "breaks" virtually every sequel "rule" you can imagine. Aspects of the original have been rewritten... apparently when Will and Jeff were in space in original the aliens were trying to drill plasma holes to the earth core in Africa, The clearly dead Dr. Okum didn't really die, he's just comatose until comic relief is needed. Giants leaps in suspension of disbelief (I know it's an alien movie and all but come on), seriously we went from normal society to Star Trek in 20 years? A fully functional moon base and whole new technological society based off alien technology even though we can't duplicate their power or reverse engineer their tech, plus half the population died in attack, but apparently not the scientists or doctors. Made worse with the inclusion of an entire alien ship has been off limits to the world and guarded by a warlord in Africa. Or the warlord's son who apparently has fought and killed aliens in hand to hand combat. How about the fact that the Aliens have no vocal chords but can hoot and holler and celebrate loudly?

Then we have the BLATANT movie rip offs, Transformers, Aliens, X-Files, Godzilla, amongst many many more. And I don't mean "they're all alien movies" I mean STRAIGHT UP STOLE IDEAS THEY HAD SEEN BECAUSE THEY WERE ALIEN MOVIES.

The stupidity if the plot is amazing, yes it's really that over the top terrible. Just utter nonsense. Intergalactic resistance, cosmic ball of knowledge, and an alien hive society complete with (multiple) 300 foot alien queen with shield vest (yes all of that is written correctly). Can I just say that when a sentient talking ball tells you to destroy him because he contains the secrets to the universe and if Aliens get him the galaxy is doomed forever, do it, don't hide him in a storage container and hope the Aliens don't find him. The inclusion of a female president due to Clinton was so " on the nose" it was laughable.

In closing, I will continue to watch ID4 every 4th of July, but I will never again watch this festering disaster or part 3, and yes the movie flat out says there will be a part 3. Will Smith is a genius for being so greedy he wouldn't do these movies.

After reflecting on Hail Cesar, I stand by my initial response of ranking this below both A Serious Man and Intolerable Cruelty. The trailer is ridiculously misleading, what you see in the trailer looks like a Coen comedy about the kidnapping of an offbeat Clooney character. What follows is a quasi musical drama about a no nonsense Hollywood executive moving from Grand scene to grand scene (all of which add up to nothing) while the bros. rely on another kidnapping plot line, all to highlight communism in the film industry in the 50's (and the blacklisted writers).

Clooney portrays no charisma or off beat Coen charm in his bland and forgettable role. Scarlett Johansson actually takes away from the film, as her atrocious accent makes you want to leave the theater. Tatum struts around as a pretty boy closet case sailor, in the gayest musical scene ever. Tilda Swinton's 2 roles are slightly annoying as is the western actor trying to act dramatically. Ralph Fiennes and Josh Brolin neither add anything pr take anything away, they are just there.

The only redeeming parts were a nervous Wayne Knight, and a Hollywood meeting about religion in the current film being made between 4 holy men, in which the rabbi steals the entire movie. It sucks to write this and feel this way, but IMO, the Coen Bros are best when they tell a small story, this is a grand spectacle all over the place, but not in any place you want to go. The worst Coen Bros. Movie to date and only worthy of watching when on a deep deep Coen Bros. kick.

Walking into this my only expectation was to see a NASA space drama about a man stranded on Mars that was better (and more realistic) than Mission To Mars & a survival drama that wasn't as boring as Cast Away. To say those expectations were exceeded is an understatement as it is, IMO, the 3rd funniest movie of 2015 (behind Spy and Sisters) and the 2nd best overall of 2015 (behind Mad Max).

Ridley Scott, a master of the sci-fi genre has crafted a truly unique movie with all the dramatic excitement and realism of Apollo 13, the dramatic struggle to survive of Cast Away and, with witty dialogue and jokes all the laugh out loud humor of Joss Whedon(in that the humor comes from (side) dialogue. Scott is able to depict the will to survive while simultaneously making you laugh which adds a humanizing level to the film. And the cinematography is beautiful and overall direction top notch.

Matt Damon is superb as Mark Watney, proving once again that anyone who says he can't act, just doesn't like him, cause this guy can act the crap out of a role. Personally I think he deserves the best actor Oscar for this more than DiCaprio for The Revenant(although Leo is way past due). Not only is Watney someone you want to see survive and come home, but he's a guy you'd want to hang out with. A cumulative portion of the movie is Damon talking to himself via video diary and his performance was still funnier than Rogen in The Night Before, Schumer in Trainwreck, Helms in Vacation, Sandler in Pixels or Hart in The Wedding Ringer.

The insanely talented ensemble cast of dramatic and comedic heavyweights and newcomers is impressive and add so much to the film. You not only laugh at what they say but you want to see them succeed in bringing Watney home because you like them and want them to accomplish their goal. Actors such as Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Jessica Chastain, Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan, Donald Glover, and MacKenzie Davis all add something funny, different, and and satisfying to the movie.

All in all, a fantastic 8 star movie that effortlessly blends genres and proves both Ridley Scott and Matt Damon still "have it". Highly highly recommended for fans of Sci-Fi, Drama, Comedy or GREAT movies in general.

Not since the Gus Van Sant remake of Psycho has there been a remake this devoid of any sense of passion by all involved. It's truly remarkable how you can arrange such a talented ensemble cast and yet while watching the movie you know every single actor is there to collect the paycheck. Norton, Hopkins, Kietel, Seymour Hoffman, Fiennes, Watson, Loiuse-Parker. All of these very talented actors are phoning it in, just as the director, writers and cinematographer was.

Is the acting, directing, writing, cinematography, etc. bad? No, just uninspired. And anyone who was fortunate enough to see Manhunter before they saw Silence of the Lambs can easily understand that. Not saying I'm biased, SOTL is definitely superior to Manhunter, but everything about Manhunter is superior to Red Dragon (even Cox as Lector,in this movie)

I just don't know what to say. Having grown up with the first 2, I'm a big Terminator fan, but having watched 3 & 4, I'm a realistic Terminator fan. I knew going in it was never going to top the first 2, I just didn't want it to be worse than 3 & 4, and it is. It really is. I've seen it twice now and I don't think I can accurately describe how disappointing it is. It runs the gauntlet of prequel, sequel, remake, reboot and parody (of other terminators) never fully deciding on what it is. What we're left with is a convoluted mess that is neither prequel, sequel, remake or reboot, but rather a film that just says "F&%^ all the other ones"

I've heard people say it's similar to the star trek reboot, no its not. Star Trek created a parallel universe in which the adventures of the originals still happened, while their younger selves now travel a new path. In Genysis, the parallel universe only serves to Completely negates everything we've ever seen in a Terminator movie. Which is weird cause they pay homage to the original at first, and then crap all over it.

While the voice over was cheesy, the movie actually starts off strong and shows A LOT of potential, you're thinking "alright, this is interesting." And then, all of the sudden, without any real warning, all that potential is gone and the movie drops off completely. Arnold is nothing more than a caricature of himself, Emilia Clarke (Sarah) is decent enough but the Sarah we know is no more, Jason Clarke (john) is awful and has less charisma than most math teachers, but the worst is Jai Courtney (Reese) whose wooden performance is made all the worse by his odd horse face. And now for the action, eh. What's the 1 thing a Terminator movie has to have in it (besides a cyborg and a Connor)? An edge of your seat, over the top car chase scene right? Yeah, this bus chase does not, IN ANY WAY, cut it. Yes, a worse chase seen than Salvation.

Why didn't they just make a movie set in the future that tells the story of Kyle going back? And now plans for a trilogy, this being part one. Really? Why? (Writing this the day it came out), this movie is probably going to come in 4th on opening weekend, behind a stripper movie, a kiddie movie that has been out for 2 weeks, and another sequel that has been out for 3 weeks. Do you really need to waste more money with this cast and storyline? Mad Max, which was never ever near as popular, both financially and critically, did way better than you and without their ageing star who would've made the movie worse.

I was 11 when Jurassic Park came out in the theaters, and like most from my generation I was utterly amazed. This movie will not illicit the same response from today's children. Spielberg (and his team) broke new ground and painstakingly created new effects that became the standard. This movie uses techniques that already exist and while these effects do look awesome, they're not awe inspiring. The "spielbergian" effects aren't the only thing missing, his storytelling style is sorely missed. No time is set setting up characters, situations, or (most importantly) SUSPENSE.

Not only is the script, at times, cringe worthy with terrible dialouge, and plot points, but no time is spent setting up these characters. This leads us to really not care about these characters, especially since only 1 of them is even remotely likable, the rest are incredibly "douchey". Making matters worse is the atrocious acting from all parties involved (all of them). Pratt is a rehashed yet wooden Star Lord, Howard is her usual C-Word role, the 2 teens are annoying, and D'Onofrio is clearly there for the paycheck. It also must be noted that none of the actors have any chemistry, watching Pratt and Howard together is difficult to say the least.

But let's be honest, nobody went to see this for the acting or the plot, they go to see the effects and the dinosaurs. On that front the movie is a success, however 3-D adds very very little to the film. While it doesn't break new ground with revolutionary techniques, it's still the coolest looking dinosaur movie you'll ever see. Despite the myriad of flaws I must say I was highly entertained throughout the entire film, which is really all I can ask of from a movie about a genetically engineered dinosaur theme park.

Did it illicit that same childhood wonder and excitement of Jurassic Park in me? Of course not, I'm a grown up now and there's no way the movie could. But it did remind me of a time I felt that way. Will the children of today be as blown away as we were? Probably not, they have much more sophisticated technology in movies now. What we experienced was mind blowingly original, what they experience will not be. But there's nothing wrong with that. Without Spielberg there was never a chance of this topping the original but again it doesn't have to, it just has to top The Lost World and Part 3. And it easily does so, anyone who says it doesn't is probably just holding on to the way the original made them feel. Let's keep in mind that no Jurassic sequel has ever been really good just good for a dinosaur movie.

I remember seeing this in the theater when i was 15 or 16. A lot of people dislike this movie for the story and plot, or lack thereof, or they have a problem with the effects or godzilla himself. I don't have a problem at all with any of that, I mean it's a big budget late 90's, remake of a B- Movie franchise, how good did you think the plot would be? Same goes for the acting, you shouldn't be expecting Oscar quality performances but the acting in this is so horrendous that it overshadows everything decent about the movie. And I don't (necessarily) blame the actors, they were screwed from the beginning, I blame the casting director and the director, producer and anyone else who put this train wreck of a cast together.

The worst part is a number of the cast are actually pretty good actors (or can be) when they do comedy(or to a lesser extent, drama). Ferris Bueller, Apu, and Derrick Smalls (Broderick, Azaria, and Shearer) have no business in a big budget action movie, especially in the lead role. Not to say I don't believe Broderick as a research scientist, but not the one the government would call to help with godzilla. Same goes for Azaria, I buy him as a dumb NY cameraman, but not such a daredevil cameraman. While we're on the subject, Kevin Dunn as the guy in charge on the militaries behalf? Really?

Those are the actors with talent who were just miscast, there are also a few who have no business acting in anything, period.Like Vicki lewis (she was awful on news radio too). Then there's Annabella Field (lucy) and Maria Pitillo (Audrey) both of whom I'm convinced only got cast because of who they did or were sleeping with, especially Maria. They lead female to the worst actress ever? And then Michael Lerner (mayor Ebert) who was only cast as the villain because Siskel & Ebert hated ID4.

In fact the only actor who has any business in this movie is Jean Reno, him I easily buy as a french military officer. It's just a shame cause this movie could have been so much better if only they took a couple more days to cast better. I still watch it when I get on a godzilla kick but it's difficult to get all the way through. I much prefer to watch others, including the 2014 reboot.

I have to say I actually do like this film but it is more of a guilty pleasure than a good movie. As I am a fan of MMA, Tom Hardy, and Kurt Angle (Olympic gold medalist turned pro wrestle), I was hard pressed not to like it. With that said I can still be objective enough to know that this is not a very good movie. Crummy dialogue, cheesy writing, and way too many subplots render this movie kind of a mess.

It starts simple enough, without spoiling, 2 estranged brothers (through different circumstances) manage to both get in a 16 man MMA tournament despite one being a nobody and the other a mediocre retired MMA fighter. Add to that an estranged abusive recovering alcoholic father wanting but being denied affection from both his sons.

I would have to say the main problem with Warrior is too many subplots that not only don't enhance the story but they are used briefly and then forgotten. It starts as "the fighter" then it turns into "rocky" then it throws in a "bloodsport" subplot, and all the while the main plot is about a father trying to reconcile with his sons, it's just too much. If they had chosen just one of those movies to "emulate" the finished product would be much better. The subplots also lead to the runtime issue, as this movie is at least 25 minutes too long.

Then there are the suspension of disbelief issues. I get its a movie but you mean to tell me that in a 16 man tournament nobody realizes these 2 men are brothers? Sure they have different last names but nobody notices that Tommy is being trained by a man with the same last name as Brandon? They make a point to say that Tommy can't be found on goggle (and why), but a billionaire, who made his fortune on wall street isn't going to do a full background check on all 16 fighters when he's offering 5 million bucks, and deny anyone who can't be found? How did he know Tommy was not an ex-con? No insurance issues?

Overall I would recommend this only to people who like Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton (who was great as brandon), MMA or fighting movies.

If you've ever seen the first Machete or the Grindhouse double feature then you know what Robert Rodriguez's intentions were. Machete is supposed to be bad, that Grindhouse exploration bad that is so over the top bad it becomes good. And on that level I find the first movie to be a success, the flaws in the film somehow make it all the better. The sequel however, is an utter failure, the flaws in the film make it unbearable to watch.

The film opens with a trailer for a sequel to the movie your about to watch, which spoils the movie for you. And the movie really just seems like a way to set up Machete kills again. The pop culture gags are just embarrassing and cringe inducing, yeah it's funny that the president is sleeping with 3 women, cause it's Charlie sheen. The changeling character is beyond asinine and rather than give Cuba Gooding Jr or antonio banderas adequate screen time, we get to watch lady Gaga. We get to see a cringe inducing Sofia vergaras as a really stupid hooker who thinks she's a threat because she has boob and dick guns. (The same dick gun we saw 20 years ago in from dusk til dawn).

All in all Machete kills is a complete waste of time and completely and utterly fails to carry on the spirit of the first Machete or its grindhouse roots. Rodriguez went for intentionally bad and ended up with unintentionally awful. And for some reason he is going ahead with Machete 3 despite nobody even wanting it, I for sure will be skipping that one and will never rewatch this really awful awful film.

That's really the easiest and best way to put it. This is certainly not the worst MCU film, but it is far from the best and not the avengers sequel most were hoping for. First off, so much care and attention has gone into releasing this films in an intricate timeline, yet plays as just a sequel to avengers caring very little for the various stand alone films and the TV show. Between avengers 1 & 2, iron man, thor, & cap USA have had there own movies and 40+ episodes of AOS, yet very little is mentioned about these things. We don't see how chummy Cap and widow have become, or a mention of starks PTSD. Better example: for 10 + episodes AOS have been building up InHumans and Baron Strucker "testing" certain people (the twins) yet you don't use this incredible already developed back story to further both this film, AOS, or the future InHuman movie. Despite the fact that you've already tied this movie into the last 2 eps of AOS s2.

It comes as no surprise to now hear of Whedon's displeasure with studio notes and interference. Whether you live or hate the movie, it is clear that this just doesn't feel like Whedon, it feels like someone telling Whedon to make a Whedon film. 2 of Whedon's trademarks are his dialogue and jokes, both of which are clunky in this film. Jokes you can tell Whedon wouldn't think are funny are somehow in the movie. The most obvious examples are the Thor pool scene and Hawkeyes home, which should have been omitted and extended respectfully. Behind the scenes a combination of (whedon) being burnt out and studio notes have obviously made this film suffer unnecessarily.

But the biggest problem of all is Ultron himself. Always Whedon's Achilles heel has been his inability to build formidable and believable villains, but Ultron is possibly his worst attempt, which is a shame considering how dangerous and formidable he was in the books and should've been on film. No time is devoted to developing him at all, it's literally, he's born and then there's hundreds of him, seemingly out of nowhere, with maybe 30 seconds devoted to building his army. For God's sake he's the smartest most sophisticated A I ever conceived (save for Jarvis) and his evil plan involves a meteor and not something nuclear connected to a mainframe? That's nonsensical. In avengers 1 we get an alien army complete with giant metal worms led by Loki that took all 6 avengers to stop. Here we get an army of ultron, from nowhere, when let's be honest, vision and scarlet witch could have easily defeated all the ultron robots by themselves. In addition not enough time is spent on the twins either, made even worse by their AOS tie in that should've been.

All that said, I still found this movie entertaining and rewatchable (I've watched twice before writing this), but as a popcorn flick, which sucks sense the MCU, for the most part is more than just good popcorn flicks. But to be fair it would be hard for any film to live up to not only the hype, but the incredibly high bar set by previous MCU installments. To the studio... wise up, you've already interconnected these installments very intricately use it. To Whedon... go home, rest and count your $$, you've earned it but it has clearly taken its toll.

7.0 (avengers 1 is 8.9)

I went into this with very low expectations. By watching the trailer or reading the synopsis, you know exactly what this movie is gonna be... hitch meets I love you man, riding the momentum and attempting to make break out performances of Kevin Hart and Josh Gad. For the record I am a huge fan of Josh Gad and was way before this movie came out, he is incredibly talented at not only comedy but drama (albeit in dramadies)(I recommend Thanks for Sharing and Wish I was here). And I cannot stand kevin hart, there is a reason he was only around in the background of comedies providing 5 to 10 lines for 10 years, because he's not funny. He just isn't, I've seen his offerings and there just bad, and I feel he is only the hottest black comedian in Hollywood now for the following reasons, 1.Chris Rock is directing, 2.Chappelle's not coming back, 3 . Craig Robinson doesn't do stand up 4. Key and peele can't handle the big spotlight yet, and 5. Anthony Anderson thought he could be dramatically did Law and Order.

With such low expectations, I didn't expect to laugh at all, and was pleasantly surprised a few times by genuine LOL jokes and a few more with less funny but still good jokes. Hart did make me chuckle a couple times I will admit, but not at the parts that were supposed to make you laugh. Gad was quite funny in the straight role and the funniest moments were his obvious ad libs. The groomsman also provided a few laughs. Cucou was what you expect (a non factor and maybe get your dates to laugh). As you would expect the plot and structure and development are all typically not good or weird or too obvious. I still for the life of me can't figure out the point of the football game.

With all that said, I saw it in the theaters because I had to kill 2 hours and nothing else was playing. When I left, I didn't mind that they took my $8 that much. And my girlfriend just rented it and watching it a second time wasn't that terrible. All in all, worth the few dollar rental if you have an hour and half to kill and aren't expecting anything more than typical Hollywood bromance movie with a few laughs.

I will never, in my lifetime understand why so many people think this is not only hilarious but also a good movie. Only 1 of the 3 leads has any comic sensibility and his part (will ferrell) is played so over the top that it's almost pathetic. Vaughn and Wilson prove again they have no business in a comedy, Piven, usually funny is also wasted.

The plot and screenplay, if you can call it that is something a 6th grade lunchroom could've come up with. But it's obvious that this movie is not about plot, but about jokes. The only problem is the premise is so pathetic and just down right stupid that the jokes fail.

I know I am in the majority here, but I have seen the movie 3 times now, and have not so much as chuckled once, let alone laugh. Top 5 least favorite movies ever for me personally.

First off this is coming from a non-believer, I was raised Christian but abandoned my faith at age 17 and haven't looked back. So the film is weird for me.

On one hand I see it for the fantastic film it is, structure, editing, direction, acting, cinematography, production design all top notch. And while most biblical movies take the traditional route and leave Jesus as merely one note, this one offers the struggle of a man coping with his divinity. Which is what makes it so great, but therein lies the problem.

On the other hand, having grown up a believer surrounded by other believers (my best friend was the pastors son and daughter), I completely understand way any Christian could, and actually should be offended by it(despite the disclaimer). What makes Christians Christians is Christ, and to question his divinity, in any way shape or for is blasphemy. Thinking of Jesus as half man and half god is not the way, he is all man, he is all god.

So while many non Christians will scoff at a Christian who says they're offended, they do have a point. While portraying Jesus as a reformed man who struggled to become god, who thought about embracing the devil, who yearned for normalcy made a much better film, it is still pretty blasphemous for a believer. Hopefully they will be as open minded as you should be.

For me, this is a rare miss for Scorsese. It's not necessarily bad, it's just really not good. The performances are all strong, as these are heavyweight actors, and they're what saved it for me. The directing is good but at times too heavy handed for a mystery thriller, big twist type of movie.

Without giving anything away, if you haven't figured this movie out in the first half hour (and that's generous) then you're not paying attention. Scorsese uses too many "tricks" too often too quickly and shows you the "twist"(if you can call it that) way too early. And the ridiculous looking green screen shots are just awful.

While I have the utmost respect for Scorsese and his work, this one just feels , to me, like Scorsese trying to do a Shyamalan movie. Average at best. I know I would not anticipate watching another Scorsese mystery thriller.

I was resistant at first, the first episode I saw (which was just before season 7 started) was "Gang hits the road", I was instantly intrigued. I then binge watched the first 6 seasons in 1 week. Genuinely the funniest, laugh out loud show I've ever seen. I love it.

At first I described it as "if the guys from Seinfeld grew up in south park and were alcoholic scumbags this would be the tale of the exploits". The show is not only about the mundane aspects of a group of sociopaths and the danger they pose to the world around them, but, in many cases it presents both sides of a topical subject, while being hilarious and not over preachy. And all the while being completely original.

And then to me, it became it's own show, no longer taking inspiration from the shows before but creating inspiration for those to come. Crossing lines and doing things that no (american) live action, or probably cartoon, would dare have the balls to do.

I use the first season as an example for my point. While utterly hilarious, it is I MO the weakest season. Not because it's bad, but because they hadn't fleshed out their ideas characters, or where the wanted the show to go. IMO that's often the case with first seasons. It's a little too obvious with its influences and with presenting both sides of EXTREMELY controversial subjects. In season 2, they have fun with it and accomplish the same thing with much more subtly which makes it better.

I now describe it as scumbag sociopathic comedy. You want to see how far they'll take it, how many felonies they'll commit, how much damage they will cause, and how much hatred they have for Dee because it's just awesome and in a weird way you have to see it to understand that.

Arguably(at time of writing this season 10 has just ended) the show has jumped the shark, but that doesn't mean it's not better than 97% of the comedies out there. And more than worth the time, but give it a little time to not be just about a topical subject but about anything.