Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Flipping Vegas (2011– )
1/10
Fake flipping to promote Scott Yancey
23 November 2022
Warning: Spoilers
UPDATE: Scott Yancey and company were found guilty by the FTC May 2023, and fined $16.7 million dollars.

If you only read this far into my review, please heed this warning: Do not use this show as any realistic example of the money that you can expect to earn from flipping a home, as all of the numbers shown (the cost of the remodel, and the selling price) are fake. More on this later.

Flipping Vegas is not a how-to show, as no part of this show is based on reality. The entire purpose of the show is the self-promotion of Scott Yancey, as part of a scheme that earned him millions of dollars (over $10 million according to the FTC) by fleecing people wanting to learn how to flip homes. More on this later as well.

The premise of this show, as seen in nearly every one of the 41 episodes (and yes, I have watched them all) is as follows: 1. Scott's "team of realtors" buy a house sight-unseen.

2. Scott and his wife Amie visit the house for the first time together, after they have bought it and are stuck with it.

3. Each house has an absurd, fake theme that has been poorly and embarassingly staged for the show.

4. Scott laments how they will never make any profit off the flip, and Amie begins overly-expensive renovation plans that Scott immediately scolds her over.

5. Scott sets some arbitrary and insanely short deadline to flip the house, with the premise that he loses money otherwise. Usually he only allows for several days of remodeling before the "open house" date, which becomes some incredibly important and fixed deadline that is a do-or-die goal that must be reached at all costs.

6. Amie visits the high-end tile and counter store, where she invariably chooses real granite countertops regardless of the value of the home.

7. Some contrived "emergency" happens (a fire, a gas leak, a water leak, someone vandalizes the home, AC needs replaced) and Scott saves the day by telling contractors what to do, even though they are far more experienced and knowledgeable about the subject than him.

8. Scott demeans Amie over the choices she has made because they are too expensive. Often Amie will damage something (a wall, a counter top, a mantle, a window, etc) in order to force it to be remodeled.

9. Scott and Amie pull up to the project in separate high-end vehicles, at the exact same time, multiple times in each episode.

10. A day or two before the open house date Scott says it will never get done on time, and places blue tape over all the things not done or that need to be redone.

11. Scott rants and raves against "his" work crews (almost always 3rd party contractors), and tells them to work overtime or into the night or to bring in extra workers to make his arbitrary open house date. They gladly and happily do whatever he wants, just because.

12. Scott and Amie show up just before the open house and are amazed that it all got done and it looks so amazing and they did such a good job on the remodel. The congratulate one another, Scott praises his wife on how amazing she is and how good it turned out.

13. Some realtor shows up in a borderline scandalous outfit to show the home to prospective buyers (usually families and couples), sets out cookies and puts up some balloons.

14. All the prospective buyers love the home, typically commenting specifically on some accent piece Amie spent extra money on, thus justifying the expense.

15. Multiple "first-day" offers are made right on the spot.

16. The final figures are revealed, ALWAYS showing an insanely low remodeling cost, a high selling price, and a large profit on every single home without exception.

As stated above, the true purpose of this show is the promotion of Scott Yancey as a shrewd, competent, driven real-estate mogal who has a solution for any problem that may come along, and who always, always makes a profit. The fact that he is successful is demonstrated through the extremely expensive cars prominently shown in every episode multiple times. In some episodes it literally shows him purchasing quarter of a million dollar sports cars, and in the final episode he takes Amie to an empty lot and tells her she can spend $4 million to build their home.

After the first season of Flipping Vegas aired, Scott Yancey used his newly-found fame to market real-estate and home flipping courses and seminars starting at $1,000 and costing upwards of $30,000 per person. This was done through a company called Nudge using high-pressure sales techniques. They also would advise people of homes for sale - homes that their companies were actually selling at a mark-up. Nudge fleeced consumers out of $400 million dollars, with Yancey receiving a minimum of $10 million dollars of that income.

Thus the success and prosperity shown in Flipping Vegas, which viewers assume was earned through the flips, was actually achieved through Scott's fame and the fleecing of people, often retirees. The FTC filed charges against Yancey and others involved in this scheme in 2020, and in May 2023 were found guilty and fined $16.7 million dollars.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Clickbait (2021– )
6/10
Murder mystery with a lousy conclusion
1 October 2021
At its heart, Clickbait is a murder / mystery movie that has been broken up into 8 parts, each, for the most part, telling the story from the viewpoint of a different person. Besides a few flashbacks here and there, it is also mostly told in chronological order.

A murder / mystery story draws people in by divulging clues and bits of the story here and there, but in a way that viewers can participate and form their own theories and guesses as to what happened and who the murderer was. You know "I think so and so did it, they acted funny just now and aren't what they seem" and then later "Oh, no, it couldn't have been them. That's ruled out."

Unfortunately this is one of the major ways in which Clickbait fails. The conclusion of the series is such that we weren't given any clues or backstory whatsoever for the murderer(s). It was essentially random. The killer could have pretty much been any character (even a minor one) we saw at any time through the entire series. No hints. No groundwork to lay motivations. None of it. I think that is one of the main reasons people feel so cheated and dislike the finale so much.

Additionally, the series flat-out cheated and showed us things that were untrue and never happened. I do realize the concept of the unreliable narrator. But we generally have some inkling when this is happening. We get an idea we shouldn't really trust this person's viewpoint entirely. In more than one episode, we are shown things that did not actually happen, and it isn't clear at all that these things were something imagined or fantasized. To me they came across as flashback scenes, which are also used throughout, but in hindsight they weren't.

This "cheating" totally misleads us in an unfair way as to our impression of one of the characters. We are shown them doing something they did not do, and we have no reason to doubt it.

Another gripe of mine is people behaving in a totally ridiculous and unrealistic manner. Let's say you've been put through something life-threatening and incredibly traumatizing, you're hurt and injured, and you manage to escape from it. What do you immediately do? Get help. Contact police. Contact family. You don't do what was shown in episode 8, and that kind of absurdity ruins a story.

To conclude, I can tell you this... after watching 7 out of the 8 episodes, you'll never, ever figure out who the murderer was. Don't even waste your time or give it a second thought. Don't bother discussing it with your friends or going into any sort of detective mode. You're just wasting your time.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A lot of heart
21 October 2020
I caught this movie while flipping channels on Roku's Live TV, on the Filmrise Family channel. It has a lot of heart, and, for a 2004 movie, manages to invoke quite a lot of 80s vibe. In fact, if it wasn't for the CGI, it could easily have been mistaken for a product of the 80s (and that is not a bad thing).

It is clearly on the low-budget side, but still manages to include a number of well-known actors. The film was a nice way to pass a lazy evening.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good and getting better
26 January 2019
We're now 4 episodes in, so we've reached a point where I feel I can rate this show. The fourth episode, where they crush a car with dominoes and try to pull the bottom Jenga block out of a stack, is what proved to me this show is going to succeed.

Previous episodes tended to touch on the novelty of the kids doing things above their age level - like a 12 year old driving a car on a closed course. That's fine, but not really what the show is about. Now that we're up to episode 4 we're finally getting past some of that novelty and getting into the core of what makes Mythbusters a great show to watch.

To illustrate I'll talk about episode 4 a bit more. This episode really played to the strengths of the various kids and the process of Mythbusters: Scaled down experiments to get data, doing the math and figuring out how to proceed (the smart kid), scaling things up through builders (the girl who fabricates and the guy who welds), right up to the actual test.

A number of methods of going about the Jenga blocks were devised by the kids and tested. Simple stuff like pulling the block with a bicycle, to a more complex bungee arrangement, up to a robotic pneumatic rig. The great thing with this is presents ideas and methodology across a spectrum that makes it accessible to everyone (I don't have a pneumatic actuator, but I do have bungee cords and a bicycle, and even if kids do not actually attempt these things, they at least can visualize themselves doing it and think about the process or how THEY would go about it).

If this show continues to produce episodes at the level of Episode 4 then it's going to do very well, en par with the original Mythbusters.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hacking the Wild (2017– )
4/10
Interesting ideas, wrong format
25 January 2019
The show has some interesting ideas, and for the most part employs actual science. However the practicality of a number of the things demonstrated is very low, if not totally pointless.

Additionally, Andy, the survivor / hacker, is a vegetarian. The ability for humans to totally avoid meat is a luxury excess of our modern society - a vast array of fruits and vegetables are available year round even in temperate regions. In many of the areas he visits, the only type of food available for harvest is animal. It's hard to take a _survival_ show seriously when a person would die from not consuming the available food.

A better format for this show would have been some kind of survival tribe type setting, where Andy was with other people that were more of the true survivalists. They would have a village type habitat He could then provide them with tech to make their tasks and lifestyle easier / better / more pleasant. However a problem with this (as illustrated in the few interactions he had with other people on the show) is that there would be a lot of pushback about the ideas simply not being practical or effective enough to bother with in the first place.

Ultimately, the settings are too contrived (he just happened to have peltier devices with him one time...), and the host is too naive and inexperienced in deadly survival settings for us to feel like we should be learning how to survive from him. That's why I feel a different format for the show would be better received.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good, but not the best
14 October 2016
OHMSS is a solid entry in the James Bond series, but I had a number of issues with the film that I found distracting. Such as the roughness of the editing (especially during fight scenes - too many cuts and tight camera shots to try and make the action more exciting), the repetitiveness and overuse / misuse of the leitmotifs (for example the simple musical phrase that plays for over 5 minutes during the safe-breaking operation), and some problems with the fit of Lazenby as 007 (particularly the voice overs - they should have modified the script to have better suited the actor they committed to).

The settings were fantastic and the story solid, but there were just a number of rough edges that kept grabbing my attention. Perhaps if 15- 20 minutes more ended up on the cutting room floor then this would rank as one of the best James Bond installments in my mind.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Zootopia (2016)
4/10
Flawed allegory
19 March 2016
"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

J.R.R. Tolkien would have cordially disliked this movie, to put it mildly. This is an extremely preachy movie, which attempts to distill the racial issues of the USA down into black and white. Two takeaways from this movie:

It is perfectly okay for black people to refer to one another as the n-word (IMDB says that is a prohibited word), just as long as non-black people do not:

Clawhauser: "O. M. Goodness, they really did hire a bunny. Ho-whop! I gotta tell you, you're even cuter than I thought you'd be."

Judy Hopps: "Ooh, ah, you probably didn't know, but a bunny can call another bunny 'cute', but when other animals do it, that's a little..."

What a terrible analogy, as "cute" is not a disgusting, reviled word. No one should be calling anyone the n-word, but that's not the point the movie makes. It is telling us that as long as you are the same race as someone else, you can treat that person as horribly as you like. Just as long as people of differing races are nice to one another the world will become a utopia.

The second takeaway of the movie is that non-blacks are responsible for all the ills and suffering of black people. Somehow someone white is seeding all the discontent and suffering that black people experience. They are manipulating black people into being "savages" (to use the exact term from the movie).

The problem with this totally binary view of the issues of racism and inequality in the USA is that it is inaccurate. It absolves the minority of any responsibility whatsoever. It says that they can maintain the status quo, continue calling one another the n-word, continue murdering one another (93% of murdered black people are killed by another black person), and all of that is perfectly fine. What the movie teaches is that under no circumstances may a non-black use the n-word, rub a black person's hair, or manipulate black people into killing non-black people.

While Disney is to be commended for at least attempting to address the subject (and this alone is the cause célèbre prompting many reviewers to trip over themselves to gush about this film), they should at least address it in an evenhanded, responsible fashion.
37 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What If... (I) (2010)
9/10
More than meets the eye
11 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I very much enjoyed this movie, and though rare for me, I found myself tearing up more than once during this film. The acting was very good, and even the youngest girl was quite believable. The message was spot on as well.

I want to address something I realized about the plot of this movie, which none of the current reviews (including the "it is a recreation of a recreation..." complaints) cover. The plot of this movie is much more complex than your typical "experiencing what an alternate world would be like if you do / don't make a certain decision", and I did not fully understand exactly what happened in this movie until considering it after the fact. I had such a preconceived notion of what was going to happen - that Ben would be taken back in time and get to decide again whether or not to leave on that bus - that when the movie went in an entirely different direction I didn't fully grasp what really happened.

When Ben is taken by the angel to an "alternate reality" he is actually taken into his own future. This movie is not about undoing anything, or changing the past. It isn't even a movie about making the right choice, because Ben is never really given a choice to make. This film is about how a person's environment can drastically change them into someone else and cause them to deviate from God's will, and how the love and devotion of a Godly spouse is so important to any minister (or any Christian for that matter). Essentially Ben is given the gift of experiencing how fulfilled and happy he would be if married to Wendy, has children and is a minister. That simply wipes away the superficial lust and desires of his material life and shows him what he lacks. The entire point in the angel visiting Ben and letting him experience his future was simply to bring out the "real" Ben. Thus when Ben caught up to Wendy at the bus stop at the end of the movie and she's about to leave, she gets to see the true Ben she learned to love so many years before, and not the jaded, materialistic Ben.

So here's the kicker - Wendy is the one that makes the important decision in this movie, and it is a vastly more difficult decision than the bad choice Ben made 13 years earlier. He had just popped up out of the blue, and it took tremendous faith for her to decide to give Ben a second chance after all that time. Wendy is a tremendous woman throughout this entire movie, and God went to all the trouble he did for her sake, to help her make the right decision.

In fact, unlike other films of this type, we don't even see the "bad" alternate reality, which is what would have happened had Wendy left and Ben was left without her. Perhaps he would've returned to his life of investment banking and indeed he would've been like the old man finally seeking forgiveness on his death bed. But it wasn't Ben's decision that kept him from that fate - it was Wendy who truly saves him in the end.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Enjoyable film!
25 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I really enjoyed this film. I found it immersive and packed full of action. The movie provides several interesting concepts and settings, such as the warmongering Necromongers, the use of specialized creatures as tools for things like long-range communication, telepathy, and enhanced vision, and the scorched penal-planet Crematoria. I thought it was a balanced blend of the sci-fi, action and adventure genres. The attention to detail was very good, which helped create an immersing environment. A few of the actions scenes may have been a bit over the top (for some reason, the two guys suspended on the outside of the ship at the beginning of the film was a bit far-fetched for me), but overall the action was believable. I would certainly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys sci-fi or action films, and feel it was unfairly panned by the critics.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed