Reviews

Pros: Technically looks pretty good, including set design, costumes, and the animation is fun and well done.

Cons: Way too contrived and heavy-handed to appeal either to my tv taste or my sense of humor. I couldn't see beyond the corporate intention: "a funny take on a serious issue that people can enjoy and laugh about while also being made aware". Maybe it's just impossible to take a (figuratively speaking) "cartoonish" approach to BLM and systemic racism. Maybe it's too soon to make this tragedy a comedy. I don't know.

Summary: It's not my normal practice to review a series based on one episode so dismiss if you wish but I have a difficult time considering watching episode 2.

... Am I really giving this show a 9 out of 10?? Yes I am! I just binge-watched it and found Paul Judd as totally pulling this off! In fact, he was so convincing to me in this dual role that I totally have a new level of respect for his talent.

I was hooked pretty much from the start and felt the humor and the excitement equally enjoyable. I don't get easily hooked on shows (I barely watch TV nowadays) but I really found this addictive. I will recommend it to all of my friends!

I'd like to preface this by saying thanks to the folks at Netflix for making this available to me at no additional cost or effort. This convenience made the experience less painful as I'd originally planned to rent this title.

Also on the topic of Netflix, they also has their productions of Daredevil, Jessica Jones, etc, that lift the genre back up with great stories and characters, while not having to rely on computer effects (and the obligatory 3D IMAX gimmicks that accompany) to grip the viewer. So again, respect.

The movies are just getting progressively more disappointing. Dr Strange, with its uncomplicated views on plot, characters, and science, will satisfy most people (10 out of 10!!) but I'm getting bored and annoyed by the formula. The plot here was exceptionally thin: really, it could be spoiled here in a sentence. It's all been done.

Chris Nolan and Netflix set the bar for me on the superhero genre. Looking forward to "The Defenders"!

On this particular night, I needed some captivating yet uncomplicated entertainment when I chose to give this a try, and this film did not disappoint; however, it didn't really exceed my expectations either.

Lazenby comes off as a charming and humorous storyteller, and we are drawn to his narrative. The decision was made to use reenactments to accompany his stories, which made sense for a film; and then the second half of the film also adds film footage from his career on TV and movies.

My complaint ultimately comes down to the quality of the reenactments. Already, it's difficult for me to pair today's Lazenby (narrator) with the 1960s TV/movie start Lazenby, but add to that the interpretation of Lazenby by an actor who neither resembles him physically or behaviorally, and I came away feeling like I really still don't know the man that well.

The creative decisions behind the reenactments, the way they were casted and filmed, what the directors chose to highlight, left me with a superficial impression of the man, and a satirical idea of the making of the Bond film. Ultimately, it works more as light silly entertainment than a documentary.

For all of the movies I've seen since my last IMDb review, most of which have been good to great, I have no idea why I'm bothering to review this movie, other than to say that it was really bad in nearly every way.

The movie was corporate box office crap of the worst kind. Nothing more than famous actors playing typecast roles, reciting reused dialog, rehashed drama, and fight scenes that were better and more interesting in other films. Totally unoriginal, the only character that gave me any pleasure was the dog.

Of course, I know stupid people here give it 10 stars because, to them, a movie is either 1 star (bad!) or 10 stars (f*ckin' awesome!), but I'll give it one extra star only for the dog.

I rarely if ever have added a spoiler to my reviews here, and I shall not now.

First I'll say that I've recently been watching the entire X-Men series in chronological order for essentially the first time (I'd seen the first film when it was released but watched it again here), and went in without any influence or expectations (I don't even read the story off the box first), so each film was watched with a thoroughly open mind. Since I'm not going to review each one on IMDb, I'll only say that the only one that I didn't like was "Wolverine: Origins". That movie was awful; the rest were good to very good.

I expected First Class to be marketing on the X-Men franchise but without adding anything unique or relevant to the story; however, I was pleasantly wrong. In fact, I found it to be quite entertaining, well acted, and slightly significant to the rest of the series.

Only minor complaint was, could they have hired actors to play young Magneto and Professor X that look any less like their older counterparts? When the only physical requirement for casting was that they were thin, white, and British, it made the whole connection with the older versions too difficult. Neither styles nor mannerisms presented by Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen were attempted by the younger actors.

Positives: Narrowly held my interest, some good acting, a few original (at least to me) ideas, free with Prime

Negatives: Overall, unoriginal. Too many cop show clichés bog the show down, the characters are standard cop show fare, and the plot isn't original or gripping enough to compensate.

I've missed most of the respected cop shows over the past 20 years or so ("The Wire" being the exception) but it seems that in this day and age when the bar is so high from HBO, AMC, etc, passing off this brain-numbing feed is bad for Amazon. Still, I'm probably in the minority opinion here.

Monty Python has been in my life since my earliest years, starting around the mid 1970s, when my brothers would play their albums. In fact, by the time I saw "Life of Brian" in the theaters in 1979 (I was 12- snuck into my first R-rated film), I already had most of those albums memorized. Once I bought the "Brian" script as a paperback back at the time, I found myself having half the film memorized by the end of the year.

We in the theater all laughed at the familiar sketches, even those of us who knew them word for word, we sang along at the songs, and we applauded with the London audience. They performed some of the greatest hits, tossed in a couple of surprise sketches, mixed them up with clips from the show, and choreographed musical numbers, some of which were led by Pythons. The dance numbers were the least enjoyable for me.

Fun were the moments when you could see them just trying to make each other laugh. Especially Cleese, who seemed less interested in staying on script (though he did for the most part) than just trying to keep himself and his fellow Pythons amused. Terry Jones seemed the least active, delivering his lines a bit slower than the others. Gilliam and Idle on the other hand seemed ageless. Palin was great as well.

I don't know that I could really put this up there with the other Python films. Hollywood Bowl was superior both in content and performance, and that was inferior to their three proper films, "Grail", "Brian", and "Meaning of Life". This was more of an event than a concert or a "movie". There was a moment or two when I found myself slightly tearing up. The first was the "Universe Song" (during the song and what happens after) and again at the final bow. Seeing them waving goodbye not just to the audience but to Monty Python in general was a bit heartbreaking. It was like saying a last goodbye to a dying sibling.

Thanks for the laughs, gents... and keep looking at the bright side of life!

Writing a review for this movie seems stupid to me since it's not intended to be high-brow filmmaking or comedy. Yes, it's unoriginal. Yes, it's unfunny. Yes, it's totally unrealistic. It appeals to a certain type of movie audience that's out there. It will make the studio some money, then fade into obscurity.

That said, it's not a 1-star movie. The acting has some charm to it, and the movie isn't the worst I've ever seen. I made it to the end- that alone bumps it from 1 star.

So to repeat- If you need a dumb 90 minute experience, this movie will suffice. Turn off your brain, giggle at stoner humor, go to bed. If you're looking for anything more, the problem isn't the movie, but rather with you.

At first, I thought I'd be looking at yet another clichéd goth vampire movie, but it slowly, steadily won me over. I respect the intelligent dialog, of course; however, I think what really intrigued me most was the mood- the darkness, the loneliness, the silence. There's absolutely a middle-of-the-night feel to "Only Lovers Left Alive" that really worked, and it set the exactly proper stage for the characters and the action.

Like all movies, I went in having avoided any and all information about the film (story, actors, director, etc) so the journey from 5 to 9 out of 10 was really satisfying.

"Mitt" was a rewarding experience but it was clear to me that care was taken to present the man in a way that he and his family would approve of.

Rewarding in that the Romneys still allowed enough reality to slip to the camera for us to have some fair judgment; but no conversation about the millionaire fund-raiser dinner that ultimately cost him in 2012, and nothing TOO controversial otherwise.

What we're left with is a sense that this was a nice guy, who was very close to his family. We also learned that he was someone who never really seemed terribly confident, strong-willed, or clear about his political convictions. He also revealed his a deep devotion to his Mormonism. I never really felt that he was in the race for the right reasons, and this film reinforced that point.

Again, the film didn't reveal everything, but (for me) it revealed enough. Mildly recommended.

My high expectations for this film, based on it's awards and nominations, critical acclaim, and general reputation, were ultimately not met as this film that neither revealed anything new about the subject of slavery, nor fulfilled any satisfying sense of interest in or appreciation for the characters.

The original story may or may not have been compromised for this film adaptation, but the dramatic arc seemed to me relatively slight, and the characters and the dialog old and cliché. I felt like "12 Years a Slave" offered little more on the slavery film than had been presented in the past.

I have technical complaints as well. I thought the acting was often over the top. The characters lacked real depth, subtlety, or originality. In life, are people always this one-dimensional?

Also, I never understand the need to place recognizable actors in small roles? It's distracting to see Michael K Williams (of "The Wire" and "Boardwalk Empire") in the film for only about 5 minutes (he had two scenes). Or Brad Pitt, or Paul Giamatti... it just is there to remind me that this is a big financial production and not a story.

Overall, I was simply too distracted by so many bad moments and production details to allow me to forget that this was basically big Hollywood "Oscar-bait".

So... on this tired evening, I found myself on IMDb looking over my old reviews. I'd completely forgotten that I'd reviewed "Banshee", but I was thoroughly amused to find that I'd originally rated it a 2/10. My original title for the review was "Eight is Enough: Too Unoriginal To Take Seriously; Too Predictable To Care", going on to say that "Banshee" was a "dumb boring unoriginal show" full of formulaic characters and plot points. At that time, I had expected to ditch the show after the first 8 episodes.

Um... time to fess up, dear readers: I finished Season 1 AND 2. So it's fair to say, I'm hooked. Sort of.

Many of my original complaints still hold true in my mind. The show IS still dumb, the characters cartoon-like, and the violence and sex over the top; however, the big difference now is that I get that it's THAT KIND OF SHOW. It's like a comic book- pure mindless escape. And for all of it's flaws, it's stupid fun! I think I was originally just taking it too seriously.

It's absolutely not a smart show like "Breaking Bad" or "True Detective". It's not classical, jazz, or progressive rock... it's heavy metal, grunge, and maybe a touch of hillbilly country.

So how did I get hooked? A few changes in the plot turned me around (no spoilers here), and the story/storytelling grew progressively more complicated and interesting.

It's good for what it is. It's not groundbreaking art, it's just fun. I will also say that, for all of my praise, I could retire the show from my life without too much remorse. A mild recommendation.

To me, 6/10 = pretty good.

I had thought originally that the commercials were duping me into expecting Rocky vs Lamotta but that the actual film would be more unique than that. Alas, it really was essentially Rocky vs Lamotta... well, "Lamotta Light".

Anyway, "Grudge Match" was certainly entertaining, never dull, and it was kind of fun to see these two famous boxing movie characters go head-to-head. Stallone seemed like he was less into it than Diniro, who really amped up his performance for comedic effect; however, I couldn't get past the way it felt like it relied on movie clichés to reel the audience emotions.

Overall, I'd recommend it for light meaningless entertainment.

This simple story about a teenage girl who discovers herself through her sexual discoveries is less about the story and more about how well it's told; with patience, honesty, respect and intelligence.

Patience, in that the film was almost 3 hours long and yet there was, in my opinion, no real editing needed. It took enough time as needed to really let her experiences be revealed to us so that we understood her best through them.

Honesty as there was no compromise to the presentation. Adele especially was presented as blubbering, nervous and awkward, shy and bumbling, and ultimately, this made the character more human and beautiful.

Respect for the characters, their conflicts, complexities, and intelligence, which shows the same for the audience.

A very good film.

This was basically the Superman story that was told in 1978, and there were some improvements, including (of course) better special effects and a more interesting/fleshed out General Zod character.

Unfortunately, there were, for me, even more complaints. The film started out okay but then grew ridiculous and stupid. I would like to avoid spoilers so I'll just say the villains, the conflict, and how all that played out was so over-the-top, I felt myself in that all-too-familiar, "Oh, it's a fantasy- I guess I'm not supposed to take any of it seriously, right?" position. Wrong! The "Man of Steel" film started out well but ended up yet another lazy superhero film that dumbs itself down to it's audience to sell tickets and maximize profit for it's investors.

By that, I mean that characters and plot points became riddled by clichés, violence grew over-the-top, and the actors lacked the charm and humor of the actors of the 1978 version, like Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, and Gene Hackman. The original '78 film wasn't perfect, but at least it was an original (and the first superhero movie) and it didn't need the digital spectacle to tell the story. "Man of Steel" had 35 years to improve the film.

The movie wasn't boring, so I gave it 3/10.

I really don't like to refer to myself as a "movie snob" but I do find myself easily annoyed with films that neither challenge me nor respect my intelligence. I went to "Gravity" based on a few strong recommendations but inwardly nervous that I would be disappointed. From the first 10 minutes of the film, I knew that this was something special.

I don't need to get into plot points. I would only say that this film is not for anyone with a heart condition or a nervous disposition. I found this film as visually beautiful as it was jaw-grindingly intense. In the theater, people were so intensely invested in this film that every intended reaction was felt throughout. Make no mistake- this film was the filmmaker's great achievement- absolutely the perfect presentation, absolutely the work of an artist.

Again, I don't shed these words for many. This was nothing I'd ever seen before.

The closest comparison for me is "2001: A Space Odyssey" but not quite. It's not as deep and intelligent a movie; not as original a premise and not as groundbreaking. But these are two different movies, and this story couldn't have been presented better.

Four stars sounds right for this film, which I just saw last night. 1 star being 'unbearably bad and difficult to sit through', and 10 being 'so good it changed my life', this movie was bearable to sit through, not painfully bad, but well... predictable and brainless.

The good news, I saw it in the right frame of mind- not in the mood to think. Cliché characters, unoriginal jokes, and predictable story notwithstanding, the pull of the movie were the four main stars, especially Jason Sudeikis. I haven't followed him in SNL but every other role I've seen of his: "30 Rock", "Portlandia", and a few other appearances here and there- the guy is funny and charismatic. I think Jen Aniston is also good.

So whatever- I can't recommend it unless you're tired, drunk, stoned, or suffering from a severe brain injury; otherwise, you could do worse.

PS The "bloopers" at the end looked fake to me.

Falling right in line with the others that have reviewed this TV-movie, I would agree that it contained fine performances by M. Sheen, and most of the principles. The script was also decent- not great but decent.

My biggest complaint is with the way Danny's character was portrayed. I get it- a good kid/bad kid. It's just that Emelio Estivez didn't sell me that he was either a bad kid nor a damaged kid from the jail time. Eyes rolling over his "crime scene" and his final scene. I don't blame the actor- I blame the director; either way, he seemed like a caricature.

Still, a modest recommendation.

It's worth noting (reader) that I never read the box or seek out the plot summary before watching a movie. Here, I went in because I read online only that this was a controversial film worthy of checking out. I mention this because it was an especially good way to watch this film. For me, the story unfolded with no expectations, as it would have for these characters, and (no spoilers here) my reactions were I'm sure exactly as the director had intended.

I felt outrage and disbelief to the point that I was one of those ready to shut the movie off because I thought I was being duped. It was so well-acted and directed (very "lean" at 90 minutes and stripped of anything that made it look "fake Hollywoody"- for lack of a better word) that it was very believable in every way except how the characters reacted. Except it apparently IS how they reacted in the events that inspired the film.

I think that what sealed it for me was coming here and reading other reactions. Apparently, the reactions I had were typical of most viewers of the film, and seeing some folks confirm that this is not fiction, made this film, for me, a must-see.

If you're in the mood for a movie that is upsetting and memorable, that will likely inspire feelings of some kind afterward (and possibly conversation), check this out.

I just read through the reviews (9 as of this writing) and I find reactions interesting yet predictable. Yes, we can talk about performances- Pacino is "masterful"! Mirren is "pure class"! Yes, we can talk about Mamet's writing style. I guess that, for me, these are reviews seemingly by film students and not people who paid attention to not the technical details but what the movie is about.

It is, in my mind, less about Phil Spector, and more about the legal system, about understanding society's inclination toward prejudging, presuming guilt, casting the first stone, and it's inability to distinguish between an eccentric and a psychotic.

As for the performances, did we suddenly expect poor acting from the talent of this cast? They're good actors and they delivered as expected. I don't think the reviews are helpful when they focus on such trivialities.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting, reflective... but not a "masterpiece". Absolutely recommended- I'd say 7 stars.

I can in no way believe that there are critics out there that found this superior to the English language version. Although it's 30 minutes longer, the Spanish Dracula added no new story; just stretched out some of the scenes in the English Dracula, with characters explaining things that needed no explanation. Browning's English Dracula was leaner; the Spanish version was at times, a bit on the dull side.

My biggest complaint, however, was that the acting was REALLY over-the-top. Seriously, I thought Lugosi and company were a bit hammy, but the cast of the Spanish version was laughable (especially the count himself!). Really, Bela was spooky; this count was cheezy.

My 4/10 is not in relation to the Browning version. I'm rating it as a film independent of it's English cousin. Because it was slightly dull & overacted, I can't really seriously recommend seeing it. (The Browning/Lugosi version would get an 8/10.)

I'm not sure if I'm more amused or more disappointed by the reaction by so many reviewers here of this film. No, it's not your Hollywood production, it contains few digital effects, no action, not even your standard "Cronenberg gore". This is a novel, and is presented in a way that's similar to the novel; with characters and dialog. As these elements are revealed, and the story unfolds as it does, I was left with a very interesting and satisfying experience.

I wonder if many of the folks giving this a poor review, saying it's boring or confusing, are simply unprepared for what they're renting, and they blame the movie for not meeting expectations. This happened to me. I started the movie while tired and impatient for distraction. After 15 minutes, I shut the film off and waited a couple of days for the right mood to kick in (awake, curious, searching for intellectual stimulation) before starting "Cosmopolis" from the beginning. Some movies are an escape from the work, and/or from thinking. This is not one of them.

I don't like to give spoilers in my reviews, so I will only say to anyone reading, rent this if you're in the mood for a unique movie that gives you cause to reflect and think. And be patient- despite what some have said, I think the ending is exactly right.