joshL1
Joined Jul 2004
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.
Ratings22
joshL1's rating
Reviews4
joshL1's rating
I saw this movie years ago, and it really left an impression on me, but when recently reflecting on some serious food addiction issues, I had a hard time finding it, because I couldn't remember the title, it does not show up in keyword searches or even synonyms, and it was apparently not widely seen, so it does not even show up in the usual lists of best movies about food addiction issues.
It seems like an authentic attempt to look at serious life-threatening consequences of failure to address food and health issues, and the consequences for those around us. The main character really has a battle on his hands. Some here have assigned comedy as one of the labels, but I remember it being more just a straightforward drama.
It seems like an authentic attempt to look at serious life-threatening consequences of failure to address food and health issues, and the consequences for those around us. The main character really has a battle on his hands. Some here have assigned comedy as one of the labels, but I remember it being more just a straightforward drama.
I didn't see this one for awhile as the reviews seemed to hint that it was intended as a comedy and that it somehow fell short.
When I saw it I realized that it was a good fresh-from-scratch (as far as I know) superhero story. Sure, there was humor to the plot that was introduced (a down-and-out type with Superman-ish powers and an image problem because he keeps screwing up) but I thought the character development was decent for a quick new superhero story, and I also liked the love story element. The hero's weakness was I thought a "good" one (it made me think a bit), and the love story aspect to the movie was something that worked OK I thought.
There were values championed here that I didn't entirely agree with. The whole generic off-the-shelf anti-profit save-the-world-through-charity theme didn't seem to find enough contrast, I thought, though there was maybe a "tiny" bit. Still, some of us are accustomed at this point to having to overlook that sort of theme in order to find the elements of a story to like and I'm not sure Hollywood writers allow themselves to do many superhero stories that don't have this sort of theme hardwired into the plot whether we like it or not.
What they didn't seem to have here was years and decades of comic books upon which to rely for their plot and villain and story-line development and so the movie may seem a bit more sparse than one of the big DC or Marvel Comics or other comic-book-based superhero movies, but I was very good with it, and while it may help really fill up the screen for 2 hours if you are doing a movie about 10-70 years' worth of comics, I suppose it might also weigh it down.
I liked Charlize Theron. I'm not sure if it was her role, her look, her acting or the chemistry with the other actors or all four.
I give it 8 stars, and would look forward to another installment if Smith and Theron really honestly wanted to do it (i.e.: if it came across as not being just about the money of a part II). I mention further development in part because I thought the basic aspects and powers and weaknesses of the superhero they created were "not bad at all" and so there could be other story possibilities.
When I saw it I realized that it was a good fresh-from-scratch (as far as I know) superhero story. Sure, there was humor to the plot that was introduced (a down-and-out type with Superman-ish powers and an image problem because he keeps screwing up) but I thought the character development was decent for a quick new superhero story, and I also liked the love story element. The hero's weakness was I thought a "good" one (it made me think a bit), and the love story aspect to the movie was something that worked OK I thought.
There were values championed here that I didn't entirely agree with. The whole generic off-the-shelf anti-profit save-the-world-through-charity theme didn't seem to find enough contrast, I thought, though there was maybe a "tiny" bit. Still, some of us are accustomed at this point to having to overlook that sort of theme in order to find the elements of a story to like and I'm not sure Hollywood writers allow themselves to do many superhero stories that don't have this sort of theme hardwired into the plot whether we like it or not.
What they didn't seem to have here was years and decades of comic books upon which to rely for their plot and villain and story-line development and so the movie may seem a bit more sparse than one of the big DC or Marvel Comics or other comic-book-based superhero movies, but I was very good with it, and while it may help really fill up the screen for 2 hours if you are doing a movie about 10-70 years' worth of comics, I suppose it might also weigh it down.
I liked Charlize Theron. I'm not sure if it was her role, her look, her acting or the chemistry with the other actors or all four.
I give it 8 stars, and would look forward to another installment if Smith and Theron really honestly wanted to do it (i.e.: if it came across as not being just about the money of a part II). I mention further development in part because I thought the basic aspects and powers and weaknesses of the superhero they created were "not bad at all" and so there could be other story possibilities.
Oct. 10 2006
It has been many years since I saw this on TV, but I remember liking it, and wish to recommend it as best I can to my fellow IMDb.com readers.
This recommendation is compounded by the fact that it is not available anywhere, except I think sometimes it is performed as a play, which I think is its original form (I have not seen or read the play).
Writer Larry Gelbart's mastery of quick language humor is evident and recognizable from his role as a (writer/"creator"?) of the TV Show Mash (though he did not originate the book upon which the Movie Mash and the TV Show were based). Mastergate is a Stage Play where the author had a chance to sit down and pack it full of good writing, and so perhaps that is why it comes across that, in terms of the jokes and mood, it is sort of like watching a Mash episode where the writers had a chance to pack it full of more good quick language-joke ideas than usual. And perhaps when a writer finds particularly fertile territory, they get in a groove.
For me, when I saw it (on HBO or some such?) years ago, it wasn't so much a belly laugh as a very amusing and intelligent satire of the Iran-Contra hearings, and that type of Washington Boondogle. The acting includes good performances by James Coburn (as the Oliver North type character if I recall), Mash vet David Ogden Stiers, and Ed Begley, Jr.
I wish there were a place on the internet where we could communicate to executives in the Movie Business when we think there is a movie some of us would like to see and where we think they are missing out on sales. As yet, when we participate on websites that seem to take our wish-listing of a film, that does not seem to translate into the idea "registering" with film industry executives that they might be missing out on on sales. I would say that Mastergate is a Made-For-TV tape that I would pay a standard DVD price to see again, if there were a place to get it.
It has been many years since I saw this on TV, but I remember liking it, and wish to recommend it as best I can to my fellow IMDb.com readers.
This recommendation is compounded by the fact that it is not available anywhere, except I think sometimes it is performed as a play, which I think is its original form (I have not seen or read the play).
Writer Larry Gelbart's mastery of quick language humor is evident and recognizable from his role as a (writer/"creator"?) of the TV Show Mash (though he did not originate the book upon which the Movie Mash and the TV Show were based). Mastergate is a Stage Play where the author had a chance to sit down and pack it full of good writing, and so perhaps that is why it comes across that, in terms of the jokes and mood, it is sort of like watching a Mash episode where the writers had a chance to pack it full of more good quick language-joke ideas than usual. And perhaps when a writer finds particularly fertile territory, they get in a groove.
For me, when I saw it (on HBO or some such?) years ago, it wasn't so much a belly laugh as a very amusing and intelligent satire of the Iran-Contra hearings, and that type of Washington Boondogle. The acting includes good performances by James Coburn (as the Oliver North type character if I recall), Mash vet David Ogden Stiers, and Ed Begley, Jr.
I wish there were a place on the internet where we could communicate to executives in the Movie Business when we think there is a movie some of us would like to see and where we think they are missing out on sales. As yet, when we participate on websites that seem to take our wish-listing of a film, that does not seem to translate into the idea "registering" with film industry executives that they might be missing out on on sales. I would say that Mastergate is a Made-For-TV tape that I would pay a standard DVD price to see again, if there were a place to get it.