Reviews

If you're not a fan of "dumb comedy," some more kindly refer to it as "slapstick comedy " you should NOT watch this without FIRST watching the trailer. If you dislike dumb comedy and watch this imagining you are about to watch a "rom-com" or "sci-fi" you are unlikely to enjoy the film and may feel compelled give it a low rating.

I'm not a fan of dumb comedy and usually do not watch it. However, I do frequently enjoy sci-fi, therefore when Hulu showed this on their home page I checked out the details--the short blurb did not sound like sci-fi so I watched the trailer.

The trailer made it fairly clear the genre HULU gave the film: Comedy, Science Fiction Movie, was not really an accurate genre, but until the film industry is prepared to add the genre "slapstick rom-com" to their list of genres I guess it was the best HULU could do if they have no real control over the details page of films they do not own. ALL THAT is to say: IT IS NOT SCI-FI. But these days, with the plethora of movies to watch--why would ANYONE WATCH a movie without first watching the trailer?

Granted, sometimes trailers can be deceiving, or worse, vomit all the best parts of a film--but if you choose not to watch a trailer when you have strong dislikes (like slapstick) and you're in the mood for a "good comedy" and you watch THIS, didn't you bring that disappointment on yourself? FURTHER, if you CONTINUED WATCHING after the first 16 minutes of the film-- which makes CLEAR what "genre" the following 70 minutes of the film falls into--then you come here and give the film a bad rating and/or review--what does that say about you?

AND ALL THAT IS TO SAY: not being a fan of slapstick I went into this movie with my eyes wide open. With the expectation that I'd probably watch less than 30 minutes before getting on with my day; and that I might or might not resume watching the movie later.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO WASTE EVEN that amount of time I did a quick check of the ratings and reviews here before committing to giving it a try. Luckily there were a few reviews that said, for THE TYPE OF MOVIE the film was presenting, it was very good. So I hit play and expected a short watch as I really had things I should be getting done. Do. Atched the entire movie in one sitting.

I watched the whole movie, indeed it was good "for the type of film" IT WAS MEANT TO BE! Aspects of it that I imagined (from trailer) would be BAD actually unfolded better than I expected--other parts WERE what I expected, but I wasn't turned off as IT WAS INDEED, expected!

I TOTALLY DISAGREE with the reviewer that stated the male lead was totally unlikable--maybe my expectations of the character were lowered due to that review, and because I was prepared to be turned off, I was instead pleasantly surprised.

Give the film a shot, if you hate the first 16 minutes, stop watching and find something more to your liking. It CERTAINLY deserves more than its aggregate rating of 5.5, but I don't believe in giving a film a higher rating simply to balance out undeserved 1-2 star reviews, however rounding up, rather than down, was appropriate in this case. The rating aggregate should be a solid 7.

There are only two things this show has in common with the show it "spun off from," and neither of those things are enough for the majority of Rookie fans to even begin to enjoy this show.

Like the ROOKIE, the main character made a career change late in life, etc., and

The basic premise of the show and the writing feels similar to the original except it veers off like a caricature drawing of someone you know: in a good caricature drawing you can clearly recognize the person in the drawing, but every feature on the person's face is ridiculously exaggerated.

I believe, having watched SIX FULL EPISODES, I gave the show more of a chance than the other ROOKIE fans that quite FAIRLY gave the show a low rating. When I came here to rate the show I planned on giving it THREE STARS, and then leaving. But I became curious and began reading reviews.

The first couple dozen I read were all negative reviews and were in line with some of my thoughts on the series. I decided to head to the opposite end of the reviews and had IMBD show me positive reviews. I found it difficult to believe at first that ANYONE BELIEVED THE SHOW DESERVED 10 STARS, but I began to notice those reviews were from FANS OF MS. NASH, aaaaahhhhh. They were not fans of the original show!

Those people knew what they were getting into when they tuned in, THEY WERE NOT MISLEAD by the creators of the show!

I guess the creators wanted things both ways, or to STACK THE VIEWERSHIP DECK. I decided to give it one extra star for fans of Ms Nash, but rookie fans: SKIP IT.

I just removed it from HULU "My Stuff" list so I won't waste my time just because it's there telling me a new episode is available!

I don't know positively what happened here, but I suspect. I hope I'm right and she fixes the problem. I loved her last show and literally did a search to find a new one. Wtf happened? Won't try again without reading reviews first. Trust us: Pass on this if you didn't already give it a try!

Wow, now I must add another wtf, to this site, don't you all think the above review was adequate and PLENTY of words for a review? I tried to post it and was told it was only three hundred characters and needed to contain at least six hundred characters and I still have another twenty- more to go, count down....

This was more original than anything I've watched in the last few years and I watch TV wayyyyyy more than the average person. I'm downright disgusting how little else I do in life. My point being: I feel I'm qualified to say, this was refreshingly different! Yes, I watched it in one sitting.

I prefer stand up that just has good jokes, zingers, stories with great punch lines, play on words--I'm not into slapstick comedy. If you like slapstick you might enjoy her routine. I can tolerate some of it mixed into a routine, but the silly voices she "over used" made me almost hate the routine. I thought the voices were really bad, other than when she spoke as her father--that was simply a deep accented voice versus the screeching pterodactyl voice (and faces) she made the rest of her routine. She reminded me of a very exaggerated version of Iliza Shlesinger, whose voices/face making I don't care for either but don't hate as I did here with Christina. I think I may have appreciated about 15% of her routine, but actually hated a larger percentage. This was my first (and will be last) time watching comedian.

....review. Because I felt the opposite regarding this episode. What especially surprised (and delighted) me was the character (and relationship) development with Jordan and Shaun.

I vaguely recall not enjoying the new character, Jordan, possibly even disliking said character. The writers have done an excellent job developing and adding intriguing layers to Jordan and her relationships with both Shaun and Lea, and in so doing have improved and likewise made Lea (who was becoming a tad obsolete and uninteresting) more interesting. Multiple times (episodes) over the seasons I began to feel the show losing that character chemistry that is absolutely necessary for a medical show to thrive and become a decade long show, and they pull a rabbit out of their hat by developing the characters.

Medical shows will always be able to present us with interesting medical cases, but for longevity, to produce a medical drama that can stand the test of time, the characters must have chemistry, heart, relationships, advancements--all without falling into the trap of the soap opera effect that the long running ER medical drama fell into in the later seasons.

The Good Doctor appears to be finding just the right balance as evidenced over the last 5 seasons. Hallmark my a$$, that reviewer needs to be tied to a chair and forced to watch a hallmark production in its entiriety-lol!

I really enjoyed this movie, more than a large percentage of holiday rom-coms I've watched that seem either too cheesy or the acting isn't good enough. So I was rather surprised to read negative reviews where the reviewer claimed to be a gay man hating the movie. If those reviewers are to be believed, maybe the movie was walking a line to make it more acceptable for us old heterosexuals, I wondered? I really didn't think so, I'm sure my homophobic neighbor would have hated it. But when I watch a movie, really enjoyed it, found the acting to be good, (many negative reviews claimed the acting was bad) knew the actors were gay (so wouldn't they portray a gay man accurately?) I find it hard to believe some of the reviewers statements especially as one claimed the movie featured a gay guy with a drinking problem--UMMMM, that WAS NOT part of the movie. Trust the reviews that liked the movie and told you why, and always be suspicious of those short reviews hating on a movie. The reviewer that claimed a gay guy had a drinking problem was less than three lines.

I've watched a lot of holiday rom-coms over the last week (unusual for me because I find them to be less than good--quite often) and this one tied with an older movie from 2011 and beat every other one (at least 3) that I watched.

....he'll just stop, STOP. She's given you enough chances, what is this, like the fourth crappy movie he has written/directed, etc, and had her star in? Do something on your own and stop USING your wife. If you can't write a successful movie without her, then time to give it up BUT STOP bringing your wife down. Shame, shame. Bless you Melissa, but you have to find a good movie and redeem yourself before your fans give up on you. We can only continue to support you for so long. At least do two movies of quality in between the "hubby favors." Xoxo.

And then look at how long they have been members here, I couldn't get over all the BAD reviews for this new show so I chose to go look at JUST THE TEN STAR reviews, I then checked the first EIGHT reviewer's (who gave the show a TEN) membership status (when they became members here) and EVERYONE of them had become members in the last six to 12 months, SUSPICIOUS TIMING, eh? That told me all I needed to know, I got bored after looking at eight people's membership status.... That is truly sad, that people working with/on this show felt the need to attempt to boost their shows rating, and sadder that it didn't help a lot. This appears to be universally disliked and was only renewed due to a shortage of shows due to the pandemic.

.... maybe that was the point? I wasn't sure how to rate this because I thought maybe that was point; to leave me thinking, wondering? If so, then maybe it deserves a 7 or 8, but it just felt/feels "wrong."

I feel like the writer messed up, because I wasn't thinking and wondering so much about the character's lives (although I did want a better look into those characters & their lives) as wondering why I was left feeling like I was given a synopsis, or outline of a story, rather than actually hearing and seeing a whole story.

Indeed, now, having said that, I think maybe a 5 would be a more appropriate rating, because I just hit the nail on the head--this film was like being given an outline to what could have been a great story. Funny, having written this I now understand why I was left wanting more, and I do not believe that was the writer's point. But I'll let my original rating stand because I don't usually write reviews and maybe that means something too.... or not.

.... appreciate the complexities of this film. As the story progressed, its intricate layers mysteriously unfolded to reveal more than my simple character was capable of understanding.

This episode's medical case was an interesting (different) take on the addiction to Opioids issue that we are constantly (and irritatingly) hearing so much about. (It's a pet-peeve of mine that because 'some people' are predisposed to addiction and dying of overdoses, the rest of the world might suffer needlessly should they decide to pull these much needed painkillers off the market. Why the hell can't they figure out a blood test that will help determine if a patient carries whatever 'marker' predetermines they will become addicted to these things so that others don't have to suffer????) Anyway.... it's a slightly different take and fascinating if it is a 'real world' possibility.

But what made this episode great for me was where they took the story regarding Dr. Murphy's personal relationships. I really want to give spoilers, but I won't--if you are a fan of the good doctor, this isn't an episode you'll want to miss regarding the story arc with Shaun and his women.

I've heard of "hate watching" a show, but had never done it. And I hated this alright and thought, as the characters irritated me more and more, that I'd give this hate watching a try..... all the way through season 1. But I hated it so much, as I began season two I more or less just listened to it while I cleaned house (watching on Netflix) but finally, even then, while cleaning house--I found the characters so stupidly, and utterly without any "character" that I couldn't tolerate it anymore. Absolutely NO redeeming characters to help you tolerate all the shallow, selfish, stupid, thoughtless and backstabbing other characters. By the time Jimmy was screwing over everyone around episode 10/11 in the second season I absolutely could not tolerate it anymore and came here to see why the hell this show had seven seasons. I was shocked at the high ratings. I clicked on filter by rating and looked at a 1 star review that helped me stop thinking it must be an "Australian thing" when an Australian said they are embarrassed that other countries are seeing this. Phew! Glad to know there is someone out there that hates this, too. What the hell is everyone else thinking?