Reviews

I enjoyed this show's first season, for the most part. Anna Torv's performance was well delivered. Political machinations in Canberra are an interesting aspect of the show. The writers dropped the ball on a few occasions (one or two of them were fairly ridiculous), but the show was better than many of its type. I am looking forward to season 2.

Another reviewer wrote this about the show: "...a Conservative leader WAS ELECTED president, Hollywood rebellion is in full force. Every series with a white male lead has been reworked, re 'imagined' essentially turned into the politically CLICHE crap that THIS series is. It's an obvious pattern when everything on the air is either reworked or cancelled to fit one steady story arc / idealistic frame in the writing, casting, and roles for the actors. This is the opposite of equality. This is the start of a culture war. And much like the 2016, liberals are going to LOSE--and then CRY."

There is so much going terribly wrong in those few lines, it's difficult to know where to begin.

First, this show is Australian. Sadly, it is not a surprise that an American felt the need to superimpose his American rantings on a review of a show made in another country. What does Trump have to do with an Australian television show?

Second, I am all but certain that the network had no plans for "Harry Dunkley". The show features Ms. Torv as its protagonist. As Maggie Q was the lead on Nikita, and Tea Leoni is the lead on Madam Secretary (not to mention Ms. Torv on Fringe).

Third, "everything on the air" is being cancelled or reworked. Overstatement is the frequent refuge of polemicists, but this assertion is beneath contempt. I am certain that it would be news to Mark Harmon, Jim Parsons, Michael Weatherly, Tom Selleck, Scott Bakula, Alex O'Laughlin, David Boreanaz and so many other male leads on successful shows that their programs are being cancelled/reworked.

Last, this reviewer spews his inarticulate, inaccurate political bile for several lines; but, all the while, mentioning absolutely nothing about the actual show. I doubt he finished more than one episode.

In a storyline move that should never have been contemplated, Salvation's writers have one of Re/Syst's leaders (this terrorist group have taken over the DC office of Tanz's company; these faceless malefactors have about 14 nuclear warheads pointed at various world cities) working on a plan to deal with the asteroid. Naturally, Liam was conscripted to work with these weaponized hacktivists, along with other scientists. Very little is getting done, though.

This terrorist in question is one of Tanz's ex-girlfriends. I shook my head as this poor excuse of a plot twist came into view.

Needless to say, the parting was NOT amicable, and this woman and Liam have been squabbling almost non-stop about Darius and his egomania, furtive machinations and general professional malfeasance for two or three episodes. In the hands of better writers, there might be some humor to be found here. Or some non-soap opera tension.

What I see is contrived relationship melodrama, while the main focus of the show (the asteroid and the planet's impending doom) is left in the background.

If there is to be some character development during this existential crisis, it should be smarter than this. With less histrionics. Possibly some short flashbacks to Tanz before this point, when he was not Elon Musk with three o'clock shadow.

Enough with Grace's shooting of Rayburn and her guilt over this act. Her trial for shooting the evil harridan in self defense should occur... but AFTER the asteroid is destroyed/moved/turned into the StayPuft guy, like in Ghostbusters.

Go back to Grace's first days in the Pentagon, spending time with her father.

Show Harris playing poker in the military, and cheating his squad members. Any of this would be better than what I just watched.

I didn't know what to expect from this series, and have been pleasantly surprised.

Too often, the usual suspects at the studios crank out characters straight from central casting. There is little of that here. Of all the characters here, only Ghost's wife leaves me cold. Tasha is written about as well as the standard As The World Turns heroine. Other actresses have done clingy, devious heroines better than Naturi Naughton's portrayal.

Omari Hardwick and Joe Sikora work well as Ghost and Tommy. The rest of the cast (outside of Naughton) is very good. The writing has been solid, and there is some caustic humor here, which I welcome.

Pacing is very good. Scenes are not cut short, however. This last quality is one many shows would do well to emulate.

From John Farrow, I had hoped for better.

This take on the cheating spouse theme was uninspired at best. The pacing is almost languid. Admittedly, the whodunit aspect isn't there. But that doesn't mean the movie in question has to turn out like this.

From the opening scene, the platinum blonde Dors (dark eyebrows and all) glides rather indifferently through this noctambulant drama. Her scenes from the post-murder flashback are admittedly a bit better. Steiger gives an earnest effort, but can't overcome Farrow's direction. Or lack thereof.

East of Eden (both versions) was better than this. As was Unfaithful with Diane Lane.

One of the aspects of American TV I dislike the most is that shows here are, for lack of a better term, too nice most of the time. As if the whole viewing public wants to see ABC Family hugathons that are fine for all ages.

There's a place for such fare. Parents should be able to sit with their kids and see it between dinner and about 9:00 pm.

Orphan Black is not for children. It's sci fi with some darkness to it. Tatiana plays the clones (Sarah, Beth, Alison, Cosima and Helena, among others), and she does so with relish. The directors have created a mesh using the score and the visuals that most shows (or films) would be hard pressed to match. The scripts are strong, and the supporting cast has no weak links.

The scripts definitely require some suspension of disbelief (as all sci fi does). The complaints of some reviewers reflect their unwillingness to suspend that disbelief. In my humble opinion, such folk shouldn't watch sci fi, other than Star Trek.

There are many TV shows and films with a lycanthropic bent these days. This trend was going on before Buffy premiered in 1997 (She Wolf of London, Wolf Lake, the Vampire Diaries, Teen Wolf, Grimm, Lost Girl and others).

This show is not the best of the werewolf genre. Nor is it the worst. Laura Vandervoort is less than convincing as the reluctant Elena. Admittedly, the oh so formulaic, almost completely unimaginative scripts give her little to work with. The rest of the cast are no better. For supernatural beings, this pack seems straight out of As The World Turns.

The casting director should be forcibly restrained from working on another series that airs outside of the noon to three pm time frame on CBS, NBC or ABC. Failing that, the producers should face extraordinary rendition to some CIA black site for foisting this writing staff on the viewing public.

The cheap CGI is also a distraction. If the budget isn't there, then the show shouldn't play up the four legged aspect of the show.

This Canadian import has more to offer than 95% of the American sci fi of the last 15 years.

Rachel Nichols shows her ability in the lead role, something she had no opportunity to do during the series run of Alias. Webster's confident Carlos is a very good match for Kiera's angsty mother/wife torn out of her time and away from her family.

The Liber8 terrorists are actually very well portrayed, for the most part. The weak link is Terry Chen, though he may not be completely at fault, here; his character is written rather poorly.

Julian's character is misserved by Richard Harmon. He tries for the brooding, angry young man persona, but fails.

There is action, and a bit of science thrown about. Alec Sadler, played by Knudsen, is very good in his role as the teenage uber-genius with a sense of humor. Dillon and Betty are convincing as cynical, almost caustic Vancouver cops.

Overall, the show is very well written, and well paced.

This show is worth a sci fi fan's time. Too bad we as Americans have to import decent shows from other countries. It's happening more and more often, I think (Canada's Lost Girl, and Rogue with Thandie Newton, BBC's Orphan Black, as well as others).

Every so often, the Hollywood Powers That Be remind me that they could give a damn about making a decent show or movie. Especially in the science fiction realm.

That this show is poorly written surprises me very little. What disappoints the HELL out of me is there is a wealth of good writing that these uninspired, lazy, conformist writers and producers could mine to make this so much better.

This show has elements of many earlier, better works. Not the least of the influences is the X-Men. There is some Star Trek here, as well as a thousand sci fi novels and series of books.

So why don't these hacks read/watch some of these? Like Millar's Ultimate X-Men? Or Gibson's Sprawl trilogy? Just watch some Farscape or Lexx, even.

These kids/young adults have superpowers. Not too dissimilar from Brian Singer's X-Men. These Hollywood hacks do next to nothing with that. The T people hide in an old subway station. Almost all the time. That makes absolutely no sense. They can read minds, and move objects with their telekinesis. Yet they almost never use these gifts. They just cower and hide from Jedekiah and Ultra.

Why are these young people all in one place so much of the time? They could have bases in several places along the BOWASH corridor. At least branch out into the tri-state area. Teleportation has its upside.

Why do the these kids steal food from carts in the middle of the day? Even that flick "Jumper" did better than this, the protagonist robbed banks. He did this at night (fewer witnesses, see how that works?). He was a teenager and had his own apartment.

They are terrified of Jed and his evil minions. This fear is depicted as overwhelming, however. The kids could not only be caught and outed. Also killed or stripped of their powers. The T people can't fight these well armed secret agents from hell on even terms, especially since they cannot kill (not gonna even bother with the DNA mutation plot device that causes this limitation).

That means they should use their abilities to evade and avoid Jed and his re-purposed T people. Be like guerrillas, and use hit and run tactics.

I'll change gears here, as writing about unimaginative hacks being paid good money to produce this tripe is giving me a headache.

The cast is the usual array of pretty young folks. No surprise there; nor is it a surprise that most of them cannot act. Carly Pope has to be about 35 (and, in the show's aesthetic, she unfortunately looks her age). Her character is allegedly much younger than that. Of all the T people, she stands out the most. Cara and John simply annoy me. Though I do understand the aforementioned hack(neyed) scripts are mostly to blame.

I don't expect the ubiquitous Hollywood hacks to heed any of what I have written here. They are more interested in buzz, attitude and marketing. Hopefully, the makers of the shows and movies I mentioned earlier will make something better than this, somewhere down the line.

Over the last decade or so, there have been more than a few competent thrillers referencing politics and terrorism. There have been some awful ones, as well. Unfortunately, there are far more of the latter.

This film falls into the former category. Hall and Bana work well on screen, and their performances as former lovers is convincing. Julia Stiles has a small role, and she excels in it.

The director lets the scenes play out without the frantic quick cuts that dominate so many films of the last 20 years. The movie does not drag, either. The pacing is fine, a quality many other films don't share.

As for the conclusion, the last few minutes will leave viewers satisfied, I think.

I figured this series would be worth watching early in the first episode. The mood is well set, and the direction was strong. No less important, the script was a match for the direction.

What I did not know was how well most of the cast works together in this setting. The interplay between Beharie and Mison is beyond what most shows could hope for. The word chemistry is overused, so I'll just compare it to a good margarita: the taste is most certainly there, as well as the kick and the smooth finish. After, you notice that the glass is empty, and you're smiling.

Lyndie Greenwood's sardonic Jenny mixes well with the leads. Clancy Brown's good ole boy small town sheriff and Ms. Winter's Katrina do not detract from this ensemble's effort.

The cast is let down by a trio of less than stellar portrayals. Orlando Jones is hit or miss. Cho's henchman character is no better than Jones. And John Noble is no different than he was in Fringe. The term scenery chewing is also overused, so I'll posit that his constant high volume histrionics add little to Sleepy Hollow. He can underplay something, I'm fairly certain. He just chooses not to, most of the time.

One last thing. The show is beautifully photographed.

Overall, Sleepy Hollow is definitely worth watching. I am very pleased that the network renewed it.

Other reviewers have covered the show's shortcomings rather well. I only would like to add my agreement that this show does not need to be "Family Guy" with superpowers.

Never mind the ridiculous cycle and jet pack, and the incredibly moronic rivalry with Nova. Never mind Nick Fury behaving like teenager. Never mind the way Peter has regressed into a kid who is no smarter, no more responsible and no better than Flash Thompson. I barely recognize the character from the comic books when I watched this poor excuse for a show.

Last... the first few reviewers whose posts were added before June of this year: try not to make it so obvious that you work for Marvel and/or its affiliates. Your spamming speaks for itself.

I was bored on a Sunday night and sat through the last 50 minutes of this. I would have been better off had I undergone an anesthesia-free colonoscopy.

The bad kids are sociopaths, in the screenwriter's story. And their leader makes Christian Bale in "American Psycho" look sympathetic in comparison. The script is also highly implausible, making suspension of disbelief impossible. I was shaking my head at the ridiculous plot turns in this flick. I think some college freshman (maybe a finance major) wrote this during a weekend bender.

Do not waste your time (or money) on this. If this is what some producer pitched to a studio as "edgy" or "fresh", I really question that studio head's judgement. If you want to see a movie depicting urban youth gone bad, watch "Brick" with Joe Gordon-Levitt. Or, in a similar vein of the irredeemable taking up the screen, "Faster" with Dwayne Johnson.

I am an American. My idea of British humor is Benny Hill, Absolutely Fabulous, Monty Python and Ricky Gervais. This film is NOT humorous. There is little action, and as for the rest of it... you'll have a more enjoyable experience during an anesthetic-free colonoscopy. This movie makes Clive Owen's "Shoot 'Em Up" look like "the French Connection".

Other reviewers say it very well, so I'll quote them: Ritchie's previous effort (and I use the term with all magnanimity) had the sole positive aspect that we were treated to images of Madonna being slapped about by a swarthy Mediterranean; as such it was catharsis for a media-soaked generation. It is derivative, smug, contrived to the point of hernia.

As for the "Genius is only recognised by the enlightened" brigade out there... there is nothing more presumptuous and self-serving than people who say the reason another person doesn't know great art is because they don't understand the 'craft /materials /moon cycle /filaments of supreme rational thought' which the 'auteur /poet/ artist/ palm reader/ idiot savant' is using to explain his or her 'vision /grand scheme /oneness with Gaea /great big bucket of dog-sick'.

Revolver's a waste of everyone's time. If you thought about if for a few minutes, you'd recognise it too. It was a waste of the cast, a waste of the crew, a waste of the caterers, and definitely a waste of the precious minutes (you can't get them back you know) of anyone unlucky enough to sit through this unutterable, wretched mess.

I can't fault any of the actors; they try to redeem this sorry mess as best they can. What amazes me is that Ritchie looked at the final cut of this movie, and thought it deserved release.

I won't bore you with its professed philosophy, but suffice it to say that it is so obtuse the director had to resort to running interview clips with various PhDs over the closing credits to explain it. No, I'm not kidding.

The movie drags terribly, stretching out the last ten minutes of a plot line into something closer to forty using voice overs and flashback sequences, that, like the rest of this movie, are recycled from earlier scenes. Yes Mr. Ritchie, I remember that scene, it was only fifteen minutes ago, I don't need to see it again, yes, I can also understand that our protagonist is claustrophobic without the relentless voice over telling me so.

There is almost always a letdown from the first successful film and its sequel. The sophomore jinx is a real problem.

This movie avoids this pitfall. The action works very well, the interplay between the actors is strong, and the movie has a great sense of humor (unlike the Spider-Man films).

Robert Downey Jr. embodies Tony Stark, he doesn't just play him. Paltrow is very good as Pepper Potts. Ditto for Cheadle as Rhodey. Mickey Rourke is okay... whenever he plays a role, he is just playing himself, though. His work in "Sin City" is the exception to this.

This movie is quintessentially what a comic book based film should be. Down to the old AC/DC track playing during the credits. If any character from Marvel ever channeled Bon Scott, it's Tony Stark.

I suppose I didn't see the same ending as many other reviewers.

One gent wrote this: 'It's not the worst ending I've ever seen in a movie but I can't help feeling cheated by the last twenty minutes which sees an unlikely plot twist of Jack visiting a morgue along with some unlikely dialogue with a policeman . We're also treated to Jack having a telephone conversation which does seem ridiculous almost as though the screenwriter didn't know how to finish off the screenplay along with a faintly ridiculous final scene.'

I agree.

This film deserved a much better finale than it has. It pretty much ruined the movie for me.

Last... is Marion's character bipolar? Or something? I guess I did miss that, as her mood swings were wider than the English Channel.

I have seldom seen a horror movie as awful as this. Before this movie, I thought that "Halloween 5" was the absolute worst I had seen. This bomb makes "Halloween 5" look like "Citizen Kane". The screenwriters obviously had about 15 minutes of actual plot. The movie is about 80 minutes long. Pitiful. Weber is a good actor; he is wasted in this poor attempt at fright.

Spoiler: The scene with with the cake and the king sized knife was not so much telegraphed as it was sent by fourth class mail.

Spare yourself. For a scary movie set in an idyllic high school, you're better off watching "Disturbing Behavior" or "The Coven". If you like your horror a bit twisted, try "Soul Survivors". Not a great flick by any means, but a vast improvement over "Molly Hartley".

I admit I have watched many of Liz Hurley's movies. Almost every one of them has been a disappointment (she was actually very good as an addict in "Shameless" about 15 years ago).

Hardcore Liz fans should stick to "Bedazzled" and "Passenger 57". Sisto has plenty of good work in circulation; I am amazed that he stooped to this tripe. The DVD set of the short lived TV show "Kidnapped" is worth the price of admission. It even has Carmen Ejogo, an Englishwoman who can act circles around Hurley.

Do not waste your time on this poor excuse of a mystery. You'd be better off doing your income taxes. And at least the tax return has a conclusion worthy of being called that.

Too often, the special effects are the star of some movies. That is definitely the case here. The script seems as if a 14 year old wrote it on a weekend caffeine bender. Compared to this, Brett Ratner's X-Men film is Citizen Kane.

Spoilers follow: The mother of the protagonist is portrayed in a ridiculous way. It's beneath Diane Lane. Truth be told, the role is beneath any of the silicon enhanced bimbos from "Rock of Love".

The movie's concept is worthy of a big budget and a name screenwriter. With a better script, this could have been very good sci fi. It's too bad the studio pushed this tripe at us. It's no better than "Ultraviolet", "Silent Hill" or "Resident Evil". Only a true hack like Paul W S Anderson could have done worse.

By all the fawning people have been doing over Miike and his work. I sat through this flick tonight. I figured, if it's half as good as Ringu, as I assumed from these comments it might be, then it will be worth my time.

No such luck.

I'm all for finding the next great director (or writer), but I don't think Miike is the one. I don't have an NYU Masters of Fine Arts, but I do know this much: a horror movie has to have pacing. It also has to give the viewer more credulity than this movie does.

This film's pacing had me shaking my head. Some of the scenes near the end dragged so badly, I went to the fridge and lingered there while Kou Shibasaki stared at the camera for seemingly minutes on end, eyes wide and mouth agape. A famous director once made the claim, and I'm paraphrasing, a movie could be made by turning the camera on a beautiful woman and letting it roll. Kou is not a good enough actress to make that work. She stares paralyzed at the undead girl for more scenes than I care to remember. And she isn't the only one doing an impersonation of a deer in headlights; other cast members apparently feel the need to imitate this non-performance. The script gives them little room to do much else for far too much of the time.

I like Asian cinema. Hong Kong action flicks from the last 30 years, Korean horror like "Phone" and "Koma", Ang Lee's work, some of the trashy but fun Filipino movies with gratuitous sex and fighting, as well as others. Chakushin Ari I could have done without.

I have seldom enjoyed science fiction as much as I enjoyed Lexx: I Worship His Shadow. It's irreverently funny and very original. Stanley, Xev and Kai will keep most any fan of this genre from lunging for the remote until the credits roll.

The effects aren't much; this isn't a big budget Star Wars production. But well executed sci fi isn't about special effects. It's about the writing, primarily. Which is why I haven't been able to sit through any of George Lucas' attempts at CGI overkill since 1999 without impatiently shifting in my seat and/or checking my watch repeatedly.

I don't say that all big budget science fiction is horrible. "Minority Report" comes to mind, as well as many other Philip K. Dick inspired movies. But Lexx is worth your time, definitely.

Guy Johns wrote: "I've come to expect a difference in the opinions of professional movie critics and the general public. After doing it for awhile, the pro's can identify better what it is that they do or don't like. It seems the more artistic the more that they like it. Regular moviegoers usually just want to be entertained, and too artsy can translate to small box office receipts. That's not what happened in the case of "American Beauty". It was on the top ten lists of critics nationwide and ended up winning the Academy Award for Best Picture."

He goes on to delineate how he saw very little of note in American Beauty. I didn't see much in it, either. How it won Best Picture, I have absolutely no idea. I just sat through this movie last night. When I heard the premise in 1999, it did not prompt me to scurry to a theater in order to see Spacey chase a teenage girl. In a purported comedy, no less.

I'm lucky that I never paid to see this mainly humorless attempt at depth and meaning. I winced at much of it, and a few scenes were cringe inducing. Annette Bening and the closeted former Marine caused the cringes. The slutty virgin did her share to make me regret spending my time on this.

If you want black comedy, rent "A Clockwork Orange", "Doctor Strangelove" or "Glengarry Glen Ross".

Spoilers within.

I have to add my review of this film, as it runs so counter to the vast majority of the posts. I'll digress for a moment.

I remember fighting through two of Shakespeare's comedies in 9th grade. A Midsummer Night's Dream and As You Like It. The iambic pentameter most certainly did not jump off the page. I complained to my teacher that the jokes seemed to be lacking, at least to my 13 year old sensibilities. He told me to reread the plays. Later that year, we watched a film of "Midsummer". The dialogue crackled with life and the almost 400 year old work made all of us smile and discuss the keen ear the Bard had. I saw it as the classic it is.

Assuredly, this movie is NOT Shakespeare. Nor is it "Heathers", "She's All That", or even "Disturbing Behavior". It's not even "10 Things I Hate About You" (I know, 10 Things is just "Taming of the Shrew" with a good soundtrack). The films I've just listed had fairly well written scripts. Pretty Persuasion is not funny. It's nowhere in the vicinity of funny. It's a few states over, like the distance from Arizona to western Maryland. The directing of "Persuasion" is unremarkable. As are most of the performances. Wood is good in the unredeemable bitch role, I admit. Her performance wasn't worth the movie's screen time, however.

When the Palestinian girl killed herself, I shook my head, wishing fervently that I'd walked out of the theater much earlier in this misbegotten film. Maybe the theater manager would have refunded my money.

Rent "Cruel Intentions" instead, or any of the other movies that I mentioned.

CONTAINS SPOILERS

I saw this on TNT tonight.

Attempts at suspense were made, but neither the writer nor the director had the skill or the sense of restraint to bring make these attempts successful.

I mentioned the 1991 film titled "Shattered". The original novel, "The Plastic Nightmare" had a much better plot than the Brosnan film. And a better director in Wolfgang Petersen.

For a recent movie about a marriage gone bad, rent "Unfaithful". For a suspense flick about a kidnapped kid, try "Ransom". Gere, Lane, Gibson and company do a better job with the respective genres than 2007's version of "Shattered".

Having seen other films that depict modern life in suburbia, I rate this a five because of the ending. The story lines from the novel are nothing that anyone who works and/or lives in the 'burbs won't see every day.

The town's reaction to the pederast was predictable. As was the blonde desperate housewife's reaction to Madame Bovary. The thing is, the ending (like a lot of movie endings lately) offers near nothing to me after two hours of watching so many of these unsympathetic characters mistreat and ignore each other. No, every film does not require a happy ending. What Field gives the audience is almost no ending at all.

Had I written the screenplay, I would have had something occur with the disconnected breadwinners of these two couples (Edelman and Connelly) while Winslet and Wilson tried to make their escape. Connelly's character caught on midway through the film as to what was happening with her less than studious husband. She could have had a more interesting reaction than to sic her straight-from-central-casting mother on the Prom King to keep him in check. Connelly's character comes across a controlling, semi-frigid shrew more than anything else. I cringed in my seat during their scenes. As a man, I pitied the slacker husband, though admittedly no one makes one marry anyone else in suburbia. He would be better off single than with a woman like that. Any guy would be.

I rarely comment on a board like this. Few movies are worthy of true scorn, and the ones that merit praise have other posts that cover their successes.

This movie merits scorn. Heaps of it.

There isn't much need to give away the plot. There isn't much to give away, this movie could have been 45 minutes shorter and it still would have dragged. Suffice to say, Neil LaBute has no idea how to direct a suspense or horror movie. Much less how to write either genre. Cage tries to do his part, but he is given little to work with. As for the ending, it's so bad it beggars description. If this is LaBute's take on feminism, I'll take Sigourney Weaver's (Alien series) and Joss Whedon's any day.

Save your money, and two hours that you'd waste on this remake. If you want to see a horror film with a pagan/naturalistic bent, rent "Lair of the White Worm". If you want a girl powered scary movie, try "The Descent". The spelunkers in the latter and Amanda Donohoe in the former are worth the price of admission.

Before you pay $9 for this, rent almost any "CSI". Grissom, Warrick, Catherine, Nick and Sara are a helluva lot better than this "Wicker Man".