Change Your Image
takeahike-83090
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Inside Man (2022)
Unbelievable plot with lots of holes, but so what?
Yes, there are plenty of plot holes, some characters' behaviors don't make sense, and all is written that way only to continue the story. But I'm still rating this mini-series highly because the characters and story are just fun. Plus, Stanley Tucci elevates just about everything he's in.
I see this show as similar to so many "detective" shows from the past. Think back to Psyche, Monk, Diagnosis Murder, Murder She Wrote, etc. Did any of those have plots that were close to realistic? Nope. But they were fun to watch. All the scenarios were contrived so that the star of the show had enough subtle clues to solve the crimes, usually murders, with logic to resemble Sherlock Holmes. So with descriptions like this, how did they thrive? They were fun and didn't require deep thought or any artistic sensibilities. That's what PBS shows were/are for. Sometimes you just want to have fun.
Vicar Harry's situation is also unbelievable, but David Tennant does a great job with his continuously failing balancing act between his family and his hostage, Janice. Janice's character is also fun to watch and is played really well by Dolly Wells.
And did I mention Stanley Tucci? I know I didn't mention his character's cohort, Dillon, who makes you laugh with almost every line.
So if you like clever characters, clever and often funny dialogue and situations, and don't need artsy plots, then you'll have a great time with Inside Man. By the way, the "Inside Man" is a character called Jefferson Grieff, played by Stanley Tucci, in case you were wondering.
The Most Colorful Time of the Year (2022)
Couldn't identify with the characters for multiple reasons.
In general, the acting wasn't great, but I've seen worse. Maybe it was that acting or maybe the writing, but I failed to see any chemistry between the to lovers-to-be. However, the subject matter is a big fail for me.
Colorblindness is not the death sentence it used to be. Hah - It's never been a death sentence, nor even a serious condition at all. It's relatively common, affecting 300 million worldwide, mostly men at about 8%. My son and grandson are colorblind, and my father-in-law was, but other than some slight inconvenience, it doesn't/didn't affect their lifestyles at all. It's nothing to be embarrassed about and nothing serious enough for an optometrist to get all so concerned. So it's hard to identify with these people because I just can't feel the seriousness they feel. And since a lot of people know at least one person with colorblindness, I don't see how this movie will connect with the general public.
Also, the vast majority of people who are colorblind see some color, not the black-and-white images that the main lead, Ryan, saw. They just have problem differentiating some hues between red and green. And for the very, very, few who do have total color deficiency, those glasses can't help.
By the way, my son tried those glasses, and while he did get some color back, they gave him headaches and nausea, so he returned them.
Monk: Mr. Monk Takes the Stand (2009)
Lazy, sloppy, writing with that court scene
I really like Monk. It's a bit silly, and the deduction logic is nowhere close to Sherlock Holmes, but Tony Shalhoub makes this a fun show to watch. This episode, though, was wrecked for me, mostly because of the first court scene.
I'm willing to suspend plenty of disbelief on shows like this, because the show is mostly about Monk's peculiar character. But that court case was beyond my ability to suspend my disbelief. Right from the get-go, the prosecutor asks Leland basically one question, about how Monk suspected the defendant because of the perfect weapon he didn't use. That's it - No questioning about any real evidence. And then the defense "super-star" lawyer (played by Jay Mohr) took over and took Leland apart. They mentioned the word "evidence", but never presented anything remotely evidential.
Then Monk took the stand and the story went directly to the defense cross-examination. Monk's *theory* (not *evidence*) was that the defendant, a sculptor, chopped up a marble block with an electric jackhammer and spread the pieces on his driveway. So the defense brings in a wheelbarrow of small marble pieces from the driveway and says if they all came from the same block, he should be able to put them together, like puzzle pieces. Probably hundreds of thousands of pieces, and the lawyer picks up a couple and says, "This doesn't fit. Not this one either". I don't think I need to explain why that's such a ridiculous "argument". The one thing that could have saved this would be if Monk actually was able to put some of the pieces together. That would have been silly, but much more in line with the type of thing that happens on a Monk show.
Oh well, they can't all be gems. Thankfully, they stayed away from courtroom scenes in most (if not all) the other episodes. Not their strongest subject.