Jump to content
Lara Croft Online Tomb Raider Forum

Everything about Movies and DVDs

Recommended Posts

The Eiger Sanction (1975)



In this long forgotten thriller about a government assassin called back out of retirement to do one final job, Clint Eastwood directs, stars and performs his own white-knuckle mountain climbing scenes and stunts including really hanging over a 4,000 feet precipice (no SFX, no CGI, no Blue and Green screens), cutting his main rope and dropping a 1,000 feet before being held by a second rope.


Featuring a great cast including George Kennedy, Jack Cassidy, Thayer David, Gregory Walcott, and Vonetta McGee and a rousing thrilling score by legendary composer John Williams, this is one chiller that you shouldn't miss!





Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

K-19: The Widowmaker (2002)



Depiction of the events of the K-19 Soviet Submarine near nuclear reactor meltdown disaster of July 1961, directed by Academy Award winning director Kathryn Bigelow of The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty. 

The entire crew was sworn to secrecy for 28 years after the accident and the subsequent new crews that served on it afterward from 1961 until 1990 were never told of the prior near nuclear disaster that happened on the submarine.

The K-19 was hurried through construction and commission at the time to keep up with the American technological advances in nuclear Submarines warfare.

Over 10 construction workers died during its construction and the K-19 was considered cursed right from the beginning when during its christening, the champagne bottle thrown against its hull by a Man instead of a Woman, failed to break.

It was also sent on its first operational mission with minimum sea trials, no back up cooling system to the on board Nuclear reactor, no suitable radiation suits and no anti radiation drugs for the crew.

Them Russians sure like to cut corners and do everything the hard way, don't they - as long as it's Duty and Party and the Motherland! :rolleyes:

I see that Duty and Motherland and Party sure helped them win the Cold War, NOT!


Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017)



$175 million to make plus $100 million in total marketing costs and a total domestic and worldwide box office of $137 million giving it a projected loss of about $150 million.

This was supposed to be the first of 6 King Arthur films by Guy Ritchie and Thank the maker that won't happen now.

This film was a mess. No!! Let me rephrase that!!

This film was a Hot Mess!

Urban Dictionary defines Hot Mess as:


A state of disarray so chaotic that it's dizzying to look at. A mess that is beyond the normal range of disarray. A Hot Mess distinguishes itself from an above-average train wreck. Train Wreck is defined as: a total disaster ...the kind that makes you want to shake your head.

Rotten Tomatoes gave it 28% out of 202 votes and it's easy to see why:

the main reason this movie sucks is because it has no identity.

It wants to be a medieval movie, it wants to be a sword and sorcery movie, it wants to be a fantasy movie, it wants to be a Matrix movie, it wants to be a Lord of the Rings movie, it wants to be every movie ever made in the past 17 years since Gladiator and it just doesn't achieve one nor the other.

In other words it doesn't know what it wants to be and that's what makes it such a big Sucking Hot Mess of a movie!!


Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alien: Covenant (2017)



Alien: Covenant is set 10 years after the events of Prometheus - which in itself is about 30 some odd years before the events of Alien 1979.

Here is my take on this latest Alien movie:

1. It doesn't answer some of the questions left unanswered in Prometheus.
2. It doesn't bring much new to the Alien Franchise or give it much of a push in a new direction, even if this film is considered part of the Alien Prequel Series and not part of the Alien Film Series that started in 1979 with Alien.
3. Ridley Scott said there will be 2 more entries in this Alien Prequel Series before it comes full circle to connect with Alien 1979.
4. Some of the scenes in Alien: Covenant felt rehashed from the other 4 Alien films and from Prometheus.
5. The ending of Alien: Covenant left it open.

Will the next Alien film continue from where Covenant ended or it will jump many years again? Guess we won't know until 2019.



A Final Thought:

The USCSS Prometheus in Prometheus, The USCSS Covenant in Alien: Covenant, the USCSS Nostromo in Alien 1979, they are all owned by Weyland-Yutani Corporation.

Same corporation seen in the events before Prometheus in Alien Vs. Predator and Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem.

Now as I've said above, there are 30 odd years between the events of Prometheus and Alien 1979 with 2 more films to come showing more events during those 30 years.

Now you'd think by Alien 1979, people will know not to work for Weyland-Yutani.

If you work for Weyland-Yutani, you are signing your own death execution.

Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mummy (2017)



A Mummy movie this is not!

The Brendan Fraser's Mummy films were Mummy movies.

This could had been just another Mission Impossible movie with Ethan Hunt playing a weekend Tomb Raider searching for long lost artifacts and fighting ancient curses.

Furthermore, both actresses were wasted. Once again as always in any film starring Tom Cruise, the focus is on him.

They left the ending open for a sequel.....

.....Please Don't!

Once is painful enough!!


Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen it yet (and probably won't), but that's the exact impression I got from the trailers!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Dunkirk beach looks too empty and clean and the troops were all too orderly in formation as if they were arranged by platoons and companies! Did no one involved in the production go online and looked at historical photographs of Dunkirk?

This was my immediate reaction the first time I saw the very first teaser trailer and people chewed me out for it saying "you got all that from one little trailer?"

Dunkirk (2017)



Yup! My take of the movie based on that one trailer 8 months ago was right on the money.

This film is not so epic and sweeping as the trailers and the critics and online articles about it want you to think.

It's also not historically authentic.

Go GOOGLE and BING image search photos of Dunkirk and you will see the beaches full of men, chaos everywhere, war materiel and equipment and vehicles scattered all over it and most of it burning. All kind of boats and ships in the water trying to pick up 1000s and 1000s of men from the water.

Historical records show over 861 boats of all sizes showed up to pick up and help the evacuate over 330,000 men.

In the movie at the height of the evacuation, I counted maybe 2 dozen.

Nolan's version had men neatly in single and double file, plenty of clean empty sandy beach in between each row of men, boxes of ammunition neatly stacked up here and there, a few military trucks parked here and there - and this is even toward the end of the movie when they said they evacuated almost 400,000 men.

Throughout the entire movie, there wasn't anywhere near 10,000 men on the beach much less 400,000 men.

Furthermore these were men that have been fighting the Germans for almost 7 months starting back in Belgium and then pushed back into French until they were cornered with the sea against their back at Dunkirk.

Yet the troops all had nice clean brand new looking uniforms.

Also by the end of the movie the beach was still nice and neat and clean and devoit of any military equipment that was left behind by the British Expeditionary Force and the French Army.

According to WIKI:


The loss of materiel on the beaches was huge. The British Army left enough equipment behind to equip about eight to ten divisions. Discarded in France were, among huge supplies of ammunition, 880 field guns, 310 guns of large calibre, some 500 anti-aircraft guns, about 850 anti-tank guns, 11,000 machine guns, nearly 700 tanks, 20,000 motorcycles, and 45,000 motor cars and lorries.

None of that was shown and with today's CGI technology, it would had been easy to show that on the beach right before the closing credits but no, as I've said the beaches were still nice and empty with clean sand during the final shots.

You really got to wonder where the $150 million budget went?

The air scenes with the Spitfires fighting the German Luftwaffe were filmed with real air worthy World War II airplanes so there was no CGI there.

Also the movie suffers from the same issues Interstellar had: you couldn't understand most of the dialogue.

I saw it in IMAX 70mm and most of the dialogue audio was too low or some of it because of the British accent, just came across as garbled mumbling.

But when the action started, the special effects sound of gunshots and boats and ships engines combined with the music track just drowned out all the dialogue tracks.

Sorry Nolan, I have been waiting to give you a chance to redeem yourself ever since your movie failures after the success of Inception but you haven't done so.

Maybe he will do better next time but right now looking at IMDB, he has nothing in the works listed as Director, Writer or Producer.


Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Screenshots from the 1958 movie Dunkirk, made on a budget of a bit over $1,000,000, which adjusted for inflation is still only $8.6 millions.


Compare those screenshots to the ones of Nolan's Dunkirk we've all seen online by now and no, they didn't have any of the extras in the 1958 version holding cardboard cutouts to make it look like there are more people on the beach than they actually were.

They also didn't use cardboard cutouts of military vehicles and inflatable military vehicles like Nolan did.

Which makes me ask again where did the $150,000,000 budget go?

Also notice how the sand have dunes and craters from explosions caused by the bombing from the Luftwaffe.

In Nolan's version, the beach was just one big long flat sand with no dunes and no craters in the sand even from the aerial shots.



Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Court-Martial Of Billy Mitchell (1955)


d70dba566615153.jpg 98a10f566615283.jpg 

The true story of the U.S. Army General who was first demoted and then court martialed for pushing and arguing in favor for the formation of an independent Air Force in the period after World War I.

This was at the time when the U.S. Armed Forces was only composed of the Navy, the Army and the Marines.

The Pentagon didn't exist.

The Department of Defense was then called the War Department.

The Navy had all the military and political clout and influence in Washington.

They still believed that all future wars will be fought and won not by boots on the ground, but by ships and their 6 inch guns.

Directed by one of the best American directors ever to work during the 1940's to 1960's, Otto Preminger;

starring Gary Cooper and a cast of little known actors at the time during the early years of their careers: Peter Graves, Rod Steiger, Jack Lord, Elizabeth Montgomery (Bewitched), Darren McGavin.

This is a powerful film about the man who is rightfully called the Father of the U.S. Air Force.


A final note:

In 1924, Mitchell also predicted in a 324 pages report, future war with Japan which included details of attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan. Of course he was ignored by his superiors. :rolleyes:

By the way, one of the 12 Army Generals who presided over Mitchell's court martial as judges was Major General (2-stars) Douglas McArthur.


Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I remember this one. He suggested the first air craft carrier also. Might have been another Gary Cooper film about planes.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In another forum on another website back in May, someone posted a thread asking who is excited for the Dark Tower?

This was my response:

Not me and for several reasons:

the first book of EIGHT came out in 1982 and as early as the late 80's there were talks and then news of a movie being made and then nothing.

That continued until 2007 when J.J. Abrams was attached to the movie project and then nothing again.

Then it was Ron Howard. Thank GOD he dropped out. Then it was someone else.

Now the movie is finally coming out after being in production hell for over 27 years BUT it's not an adaptation of the first book and that's what the fans were expecting.

It's a LOOSELY Adaptation, emphasis on LOOSELY!

The fans were expecting Hollywood to adapt the first book into a film and then have 7 sequels, just like the Harry Potter films did to the books, starting with the first one and ending with the last one and they did it very successfully too.

Instead this movie is a hogmash mix of the first book and third book and bits and pieces from the other 6 books to make a 


So if you are a fan of The Dark Tower books and you read all of them and re-read them and you can almost quote every line and you are excited by this movie, don't be, because almost every thing you read in those EIGHT books will not be in this movie.

Furthermore, at this time there are no talks of sequels so if this movie does poorly at the box office domestically and internationally, kiss the sequels goodbye!

BUT don't fret, there is a TV series coming and in production already, starring the same actors from the movie, AS IF THEY ALREADY know the movie is going to FLOP!

How Stephen King allowed this to happen I will never know except for he probably got a nice 6-7 digit check to sell his soul to Hollywood and NOT HAVE ANY INPUT!

I was correct.

This movie is getting very bad reviews.

17% on Rotten Tomatoes.


Here's a very good review that sums it up:


Very first mistake the producers made is cave in to Political Correctness and cast Idris Elba in the role of the main character, the Gunslinger.

Big mistake!

Idris Elba is a great actor but this one role that was definitely not meant for him or for any African or African American actor!

Then there was the 27+ years long production hell this movie has been stuck into which doesn't help it either.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arthur (1981)



Dudley Moore is Arthur. The son of a wealthy family who has no ambitions in life, no purpose, no goals and he doesn't do anything with his passing days but drink and drink and drink until he is so drunk, he can hardly remain standing.

His father wants him to marry Susan, the daughter of another wealthy family. If he doesn't, his father will cut him off from his inheritance of $750 million.

Now Susan is in love with Arthur which I can't understand why: the guy is a regular drunk who doesn't take anything seriously in life - why would any woman want to be with a loser like him?

She is not marrying him for his money, she doesn't need his money and her father told Arthur if he doesn't marry his daughter, he will kill him.

I also don't understand that part either since Susan's father also doesn't need Arthur's money.

That part was never clearly explained in the movie - if I was Susan's father, I sure don't want my daughter to marry a regular drunk like Arthur who thinks everything is funny and has never worked a day in his life.

While he was out shopping, Arthur meets another woman by chance and he falls in love with her and he is willing to lose his $750 million to marry her.

The movie has a few funny moments and John Gielgud, who plays Arthur's butler and caretaker since he was born, won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role.

I haven't seen anyone drink so much and fall over so many times from being drunk since Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas.

By the way, Dudley Moore was nominated for Best Actor but he lost out to Henry Fonda in his final big screen movie role in On Golden Pond.


Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marie-Octobre (1959) aka Secret Meeting




Version watched - the 2016 Blu-Ray DVD:


From IMDB:


fifteen years after WWII, a group of ex-resistance fighters are brought together by Marie-Octobre, so that the former members of the network can finally relive one fateful night and find out who betrayed their murdered leader, Castille.

This is a good movie except the characters, all 10 of them, spent the entire film in a mansion talking and recollecting and reminiscing about their war experiences and the events that lead up to the murder of their leader by the Nazi SS, just a few days before the liberation of Paris by the Allies.

There are no flashback scenes set during the war: none!! As the viewer, you will just have to pay attention to what is being said and use your own imagination to visualize the past events as described by the 10 characters.

By the time they speak of how their leader was murdered, you don't feel the same emotion and loss as the characters felt because there is nothing visual for us to see it happening.

The film could had used some flashback scenes to powerful convey what this group of French resistance fighters went through during the war.

Alas we don't get any and that by itself is the only fault this movie has. So instead of it being a Great movie, it's only a Good movie.

Maybe the producers were trying to keep the budget low?

The strongest character is the movie title lead character, played by Danielle Darrieux, who by the way is now 100 years old and she is still alive and working in movies and TV as recently as last year.

I hope I will still be able to do what I want when I am 100. :P


Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atomic Blonde (2017)



In the closing days of West and East Germany, on the eve of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, top level MI-6 spy operative Broughton is sent to Berlin to retrieve the List:

a microfilm which contains the names of every field agent in Europe.

Agent Broughton is a woman and she has already been set up from the start to fail but sometimes you just need a woman's touch to get the job done.

Statuesque South African Goddess Charlize Theron is MI-6 Agent Lorraine Broughton 


and she kicks some major asses in several exciting, intense, no holds barred, bloody action sequences!!

Broughton makes James Bond look like a wimp, Jason Bourne look like a boy scout, Ethan Hunt look like a punk and Lara Croft look like a nun.

Add a rousing soundtrack featuring the who's who of 70's-80's music: Depeche Mode, New Order, David Bowie, Peter Schilling, Nena, Re-Flex, After The Fire, The Clash, etc, etc, ...

... and you have the perfect ingredients for the Estrogen filled action movie of this Summer! 

Will there be a sequel or a spin off movie with Charlize Theron returning as Agent Broughton to kick more asses ?

I sincerely sure do hope so!



Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to know Atomic Blonde is good! I've loved the look of it since the first trailer, and that soundtrack is fantastic. Reminded me of John Wick.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morph said:

Good to know Atomic Blonde is good! I've loved the look of it since the first trailer, and that soundtrack is fantastic. Reminded me of John Wick.

The director of this movie was actually a 2nd unit director on the John Wick movies.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Happened To Monday (2017) (USA title) aka Seven Sisters (European Title)





In a not so distant future, where overpopulation and famine have forced governments to undertake a drastic One-Child Policy, seven identical sisters (all of them portrayed by Noomi Rapace) live a hide-and-seek existence pursued by the Child Allocation Bureau. The Bureau, directed by the fierce Nicolette Cayman (Glenn Close), enforces a strict family-planning agenda that the sisters outwit by taking turns assuming the identity of one person: Karen Settman. Taught by their grandfather (Willem Dafoe) who raised and named them - Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday - each can go outside once a week as their common identity, but are only free to be themselves in the prison of their own apartment. That is until, one day, Monday does not come home. (IMDB)

This is a joint UK/France/USA production that started out well with a very interesting premise and becomes a predictable messy movie borrowing and lifting everything from just about every dystopian and utopian sci-fi movie made before it.

The script needed better writing, more logic, more continuity and quite a great deal of polishing. Maybe if it was written by someone like Spielberg or if it was based on original material by Crichton or Philip K. Dick, it would had turned out better.

Yet it's better than most movies we've been seeing lately, if you have 2+ hours with nothing better to do and watch.

Filmed entirely in Romania, this film didn't even receive a North American theatrical release.

Instead it was released by Netflix for online streaming to U.S. and Canadian audiences.


Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 months ago I posted my review of Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 1:

"Horrible Horrible Horrible film.

Nothing but set pieces put together to make a nearly 2 hours movie (if you don't include the ending credits).

Then aside from the unneeded profanity, you had scenes that were out of place that were just put in by the screenwriters as fillers.

There is nothing in the movie that made me care for those characters or for whatever they were looking for or that held my attention.

It took me several viewings over 3 nights for me to finish it from beginning to end.

Also what's the deal with Howard The Duck at the end?


Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)



It has some pretty impressive visuals and special effects but once again, it's bunch of set pieces of action and dramatic narrative put together to make a whole.

The middle act suffers from too much repetition and slow pacing.

Just like the first one that was so forgettable where I don't recall much about it, I have to keep asking myself who is this? Who is that?

Characters from the first movie appear and new characters are introduced and they don't stick around long enough for you to care about them.

There are several plot devices put into the script to drive an otherwise senseless story forward, a story we are all familiar with and have seen in other movies before.

By the time you have finish watching this 2 hours and 16 minutes over long film, you will find yourself asking:

What did I just watch???

Of course there will be a sequel. Without Marvel and DC comics, the movie business will be out of business.


Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 9:15 PM, j7wild said:

Will there be a sequel or a spin off movie with Charlize Theron returning as Agent Broughton to kick more asses ?

I sincerely sure do hope so!

I've always liked Charlize Theron, ever since she was the star character in the movie Aeon Flux


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2017 at 9:39 PM, Blade said:

I've always liked Charlize Theron, ever since she was the star character in the movie Aeon Flux


First time I saw her was her scene in her first credited starring role in 1996's 2 Days in the Valley 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)



Josey Wales is a Missouri farmer who joins an elite Confederate guerrilla unit and together, they are responsible for defeating and routing many Union army units in several battles and skirmishes during the American Civil War.

When the war ended after the Union victory, all Confederate units are required to surrender to the nearest Union outpost and swear allegiance to the United States of America and to the Constitution of the United States.

Those who don't surrender and swear such allegiance are considered criminals and traitors and they will be hunted down until they are either captured alive or killed.

Josey Wales is one of those who refuses to surrender, especially when the Union unit he is supposed to surrender to was also the same one who were responsible for the murder of his wife and son a few years earlier at the beginning of the Civil War.

Wales decides to make his way to Texas or to Mexico, where most outlaws at the time fled to to avoid prosecution.

Along the way, with bounty hunters and union soldiers still in hot pursuit, he unwillingly picks up an odd group of strangers including a Kansas religious lady and her daughter, an old Cherokee, a Navajo woman, and many others.

Eastwood himself had said this film is one of the high point of his Western film career and he considers it to be the best Western he has ever made:

What? Really? Not Unforgiven? Which he won two Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director?

In 1996, The Outlaw Josey Wales was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry. It was also one of the few Western films to receive critical and commercial success in the 1970s at a time when the Western was thought to be dying as a major genre in Hollywood. (source: wiki)

The strong cast does a good job at fleshing out the characters and building up their motivations and background stories.

The only weak link in the cast is Sondra Locke. She doesn't do much with the character she is portrayed.



High Plains Drifter (1973)



Between the time Clint Eastwood made the last movie in Sergio Leone's No Man's trilogy: 1966's The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and the time he made a more contemporary western in 1985 Pale Rider, he also made several other western films.

They were: starting with Hang' Em High in 1968, Paint Your Wagon, Two Mules For Sister Sara, Joe Kidd, High Plains Drifter, and The Outlaw Josey Wales in 1976. 


This was a damn good movie.

An early Eastwood directorial too.



Joe Kidd (1972)



In the western territory of future state of New Mexico, a former bounty hunter turned rancher unwillingly gets involved in a land dispute between ruthless, greedy wealthy white men and the Mexican peasants who have legal ownership of the land before it was forcefully taken from them by the white landowners settling west.

Featuring a cast of familiar actors including Robert Duvall, Don Stroud, John Saxon (he played the town Lieutenant, Nancy's father in A Nightmare On Elm Street and one of the tournament fighters contestants in Enter the Dragon), Dick Van Patten, Gregory Walcott (Plan 9 From Outer Space), I was expecting more action and more fleshing out of the characters and exposition on the land dispute.


The screenplay is written by Elmore Leonard and the film is directed by John Sturges:

the director of legendary films such as the Great Escape, the Magnificent Seven, the Eagle Has Landed, Bad Day at Black Rock, Ice Station Zebra, Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, and The Old Man and the Sea.

Plus the lead in to the climax was dumb. Supposedly a different ending was written and the producer jokingly said "... instead of doing the ending in the script, it would be silly but fun if we change it to this other thing..." and the cast and crew took his joke seriously and went with it.


Hang 'Em High (1968)



Clint Eastwood's first post 'Sergio Leone's The Man With No Name trilogy' Western genre film starring role: the first of many American movie studios made Westerns he will end up making during the late 60's to the late 70's.

This is a strong denounciation of the American justice system during the west or more specifically, the lack of a justice system;

a system so corrupt and flawed, one man will decide everyone's fate with no appeals. 

A justice system where the accused, whether guilty or innocent, have no rights, and the lawmen enpowered to bring in the accused are doing the Devil's work and bidding.

This movie also co-stars a young Dennis Hopper and Bruce Dern.


Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two Mules For Sister Sara (1970)



During the French Intervention in Mexico (honestly I never heard of this before):


Cowboy Hogan (Eastwood) saves a nun from robbers he ends up getting more than he bargained for.

Originally intended for Elizabeth Taylor, Shirley MacLaine was cast at the last minute to take the title role of Sister Sara.

She didn't get along with Director Don Siegel, who previously directed Eastwood in Coogan's Bluff and will go on to direct Eastwood in 3 more movies: The Beguiled, Dirty Harry, Escape From Alcatraz.

There are also rumors that MacLaine also didn't get along with Eastwood during the filming.

A few years later when MacLaine was writing her autobiography and memoirs, she had nothing to say about Eastwood as if she and Eastwood never starred in a film together. 

This film marks the first time an A-list actress was Eastwood's leading lady in a film who also gets top credits billing before him:


and Eastwood made sure it didn't happen again for 25 years until another A-list star was to play his leading lady in The Bridges Of Madison County.

Exciting, witty, humourous and featuring an energetic musical soundtrack by Ennio Morricone, this movie has quite a few surprises.


Edited by j7wild

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2017 at 8:47 AM, j7wild said:

OOOOH YEAH I am so going to be WATCHING THIS!! 


This premiered tonight.

I recorded it and will watch it after my kids go to sleep.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was fun but I was expecting it to be a bit more hilarious.

Maybe it will improve.

There are 13 episodes total.

Hope it doesn't become one of those FOX shows that gets cancelled before the debut season is over and leaves many unaired episodes.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now