S Gill
Joined Jan 2000
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews9
S Gill's rating
Plot Summary - The dullest family in America live through the 1950's raising their children with the aid of a Middle-aged loser who lives above their garage.
I don't think I ever saw an episode of this show that didn't bore me to tears, however when it was repeated recently I thought that I should give it another chance. I wish I hadn't bothered, it really is as dull as I had first thought. A complete waste of airtime.
I don't think I ever saw an episode of this show that didn't bore me to tears, however when it was repeated recently I thought that I should give it another chance. I wish I hadn't bothered, it really is as dull as I had first thought. A complete waste of airtime.
This film was a pleasant surprise and reminded me of "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" and "The Shining" both in plot content and, more particularly, the methods used to build atmosphere and suspense.
The film struggles to overcome its budgetary constraints and suffers from some rather wooden performances from the limited cast. It is unfortunate that when dealing with such a small cast a below par performance is a great deal more obvious than it would be in most films. A case of not enough flowers to hide the weeds.
I was surprised to see comments from another viewer who attributed this film to the UK, as far as I can see there are no links to the UK. The writer was Canadian and the cast, director, studio and locations all American.
It's certainly worth 70 minutes of your time to give this production a chance, if nothing else it is a refreshing change from the hideously unconvincing "rubber monster" flicks that were so prevalent in this genre.
The film struggles to overcome its budgetary constraints and suffers from some rather wooden performances from the limited cast. It is unfortunate that when dealing with such a small cast a below par performance is a great deal more obvious than it would be in most films. A case of not enough flowers to hide the weeds.
I was surprised to see comments from another viewer who attributed this film to the UK, as far as I can see there are no links to the UK. The writer was Canadian and the cast, director, studio and locations all American.
It's certainly worth 70 minutes of your time to give this production a chance, if nothing else it is a refreshing change from the hideously unconvincing "rubber monster" flicks that were so prevalent in this genre.
This film is awful
I'm sorry to say it but all of those people who say "if you didn't enjoy it it's because you have no imagination", rubbish. Those who didn't enjoy it are simply honest people with sufficient imagination and intelligence not to be swept up by one of the most successful marketing machines of all time.
Usually when I comment on a film, even a bad one , I like to find something nice to say about it. On this occasion however the only plus I can think of is, at least it wasn't any longer.
I'm sorry to say it but all of those people who say "if you didn't enjoy it it's because you have no imagination", rubbish. Those who didn't enjoy it are simply honest people with sufficient imagination and intelligence not to be swept up by one of the most successful marketing machines of all time.
Usually when I comment on a film, even a bad one , I like to find something nice to say about it. On this occasion however the only plus I can think of is, at least it wasn't any longer.