Reviews

This show has very little story, and is an overly dramatic depiction of teenage sex and sexual violence. One or two people in real life may act like this, but this is implies that all teens do. To get viewers it seems to ride in the current movie theme of explicitly showing as many erect and flaccid penises in the shortest amount of time. More penises = more viewers and there is a penis in almost every scene Very little female nudity is shown which is also a representation of the current era where a hint at a women's side boob is considered as objectification of women and so called "visual rape".

After several women complain how women are objectified and portrayed in porn, they go on a quest to make their own "good" porn. Naturally these whacked out women have scared all men away from they so they need to find one to act in their porno. When they interview the first candidate their first question on their minds are "Do you have a really big penis". And then they complain about men.

The concept of this series is great, the props were good, story all good while actors doing a good job. The problem with this though is that when a person who is "selected" to go on one of these missions, they go through rigorous psychological testing to ensure that they have reliability, thick skin, intelligence, co-operative people skills and will not through continuous child like tantrums while tearing each other apart whilst on an isolated space trip which would jeopardise everyone including the space craft. In this series you have a bunch of millennials behaving stereotypically spoilt, childish, and as individuals (as opposed to working in a team). Their social skills are are terrible and this could never be allowed to be part of anything mission critical.

Everyday I get asked if their was ever a movie that really portrays reality of a day in the life of a cop. Negating the fact that every individuals life experiences are unique to them, the events in Narc is about as real as it gets. There is no event shown that I had not seen or done in my 20 years. The real kicker is how the show captures the the culture of crooks against cops, the daily grind, the raw emotions experienced from the repetitive trauma the thankless cop endures to perform his servitude to the good people he protects. It is these emotions that are so brilliantly captured that make this the best police movie to date. It also highlights why the mental illness and suicide rates in modern policing are today so common.

Acting was very cliched and cheesy. The story was interesting but the producers/directors just failed to captivate and convince their audience. Overall, it was so bad that it was boring, and it's hard to make a boring war movie!

Due to being called "nude" I'll focus on that. I've only watched the first 2 episodes and have noticed that this is a total sausage fest. The men are all explicitly nude with close ups on their loins, while the women are all wearing super fury merkins or have strategic clothing or objects covering their private parts. If you see a women naked, she will be at a distance and out of focus, meaning you won't see anything on your 75" tv without a high powered magnifying glass. Given that I maybe watching a heavily censored Australian version where female nudity is taboo, other countries may see something different. The story is a little intriguing and entertaining, it's a pity the graphics are not.

How do you get a really bad movie without any humour and rehashed old jokes to sell during these fanatically politically correct times? Easy... you have as many scenes of full frontal male nudity, lots of close up penis shots, remove all female nudity, that one all modern entitled and empowered feminists will want to attend and drag their unwitting partners along, lobby to have the US rating lowed to an M so even teenage girls attend, and bingo! Your really bad movie sells.

The documentary started out OK, pointing out that men's sexual dysfunction has been cured with Viagra, but women's has gone on abandoned (note, Viagra only corrects impotence, not low libido, so no, it is NOT cured). The race is then on to find the equivalent V for women through various means.

First we start with the drug companies, where we find the search is not only fruitless, but the host now suggests that it is possibly fruitless because women's sexual dysfunction is not real, but rather one pushed onto us by drug companies who then want to sell us the magical cure.

Then we explore other avenues such as machines and gadgets, some in theory working much like a "super dildo". According to the host, again the search is fruitless.

Then we explore surgery. This is where things start to get nasty and hypocritical while taking on a new tone. We are told that women can get cosmetic surgery to assist them quest for sexual dysfunction. The information is presented to us in a "shock" like strategy. Once we are fully mortified, the film goes on to blame society (read "men" only) who are to blame for pressuring women into this space. We now enter man hating misandrist territory. After they complain about how its all the fault of the male, partly because they do not know how to please a women's vagina, and partly to show the result of the surgery, we are shown photos of the result, although, we don't see the photo's so how are men supposed to know? In a era were explicit penis filled movies on prime time attract a G rating (in AUS), the hypocritical misandrists have even censored out the photos. It is about here I decided I could not take any more and switched it off with about 15 minutes to go.

Another total disappointing documentary that highlights women's issues and finishes off by blaming men for all of their problems. In reality, all of the studies show that it is women who bully and shame other women about their bodies and not men, so apart from the underlying misandrist themes, I could not see any purpose to this documentary at all.

Apart from fueling more hate and resentment towards the male population in general, very little could be learned by anyone with this show.

Ever wondered why law courts and police don't like criminologists? Watch this and you will see.

Prof. David Wilson asked closed questions, leading questions, passes random statements off as questions and uses these responses to now jump to rapid conclusions and assume the worst. Prof. Wilson could never get away with this in a courtroom or a police investigation, so, he gets funding to make a doco out of it. Now I'm not rooting for any party, but this is just plain bad.

He takes that random rants (testimony) of a women who is the mother of another convicted killer, implies that she is some sort of eye witness, then attempts to use this as primary evidence to catch his killer. Of course it all falls down and the annoying prof has to call the questioning quits. He then resorts to another strategy, towards the end he taunts the interviewee with emotional threats of retribution and how he will call on the cavalry to convict his man. When the interviewee does not bite the prof. has to leave the room to hide his own emotions.

Throughout the doco it is evident that the prof. cherry picks his evidence and testimonies, while it is blatantly obvious to the trained eye that he has not even reviewed the courts evidence which he should know like the back of his hand.

Now we all want to catch the killer, but this is unbelievably bad.

This is one of those movies that tries really hard at being funny....but it's not. It is loaded with profanity that does not quiet role right with the actors and that is said in a way that is reminiscent of a second grader trying to boost their tough guy image with excessive swearing.

The story line is very clichéd and weak. This is the sort of movie you only show your friends if you secretly hate them. Its the same old theme; a goof-ball owes a drug dealer money, he pays the dealer back buy moving drugs and runs into several unplanned obstacles, in the end the good guys win, goof-ball gets off debt free and falls in love with the beautiful side kick.

Overall the unnecessary overuse of profanity and nude men dampen the movie when they are put in to try and add some humour. This all contributes to make this movie an unfortunate epic fail.

This is one of the B graders that fails to really go anywhere. The story is really hard to follow and has several goofs in it just to complicate this further. By the end, you really have to ask yourself "what was meant to happen".

From my perspective the film looked like a poor excuse to give James Deen is big break from seedy porn to Hollywood, while Lindsay holding his hand all the way. With the amount of graphic nudity shown by the two male actors, and in particular Deen, I can understand Lindsy's protests during production, as this has the potential to tar her reputation as a porn actor, rather than lift Deen's image. By media reports, if Deen behaves in real life as he does on film (one of LiLo's protests), then I can also understand her concerns and having days where she does not want to show up.

With everything so vague and by the end of the show, I could not make out what was the goal of the whole movie. If you like close-ups of Deen's anatomy then this might be the show for you.

This movie starts of with the title "Based on a true story". As a career law enforcement officer of the UK and a crime research enthusiast, I have to say this is very, very loosely based on real facts. If you watch the extra's with the director, he will even tell you that his information on the Bronson facts are based on rumors and newspaper clippings.

Unfortunately, the movie glorifies the exorbitant violence that Bronson wanted to be known for. In reality, every law enforcement officer or prison guard will tell you that he was not much different when compared to any other prisoner.

To enhance the visual impact of the movie, the level of graphic male nudity is extreme to the point where Tom Hardy may as well played the movie sans clothes. Numerous penile close-ups make you wondering if the movie would border on soft porn.

Overall, this movie is portrayed as a British "Hollywood" version of events, due to its incorrect facts, its "artsy" persona, I would not recommend this movie. Only a gullible lay person would swallow such drama.

The most unfortunate part is that a misinformed director has given one of Britain's men exactly what he wanted; glorification at the expense of his victims.