Reviews

A couple of things... Can I really be the first to review this? IMDB says I am. Wow! Also, this was good enough to make me want to track down the 2016 limited series it was based on.

In 2016, 'The Exchange Principle' was a 10-part series for Israeli TV. This one is German, which I find interesting from a historical perspective. They both have falsely-accused Muslim suspects.

Another odd thing to me-- The overall review of the series is showing in the 7's, yet the individual episodes are all in the 8's. How is that possible??

The star of the series is Max Riemelt as former heroic cop Mike Atlas, who has become homeless. He has also lost his wife and daughter by leaving them while he deals with his PTSD. But what, or who, caused the trauma? There is murder, racism, drug use, paranoia, and corruption. And that's just within law enforcement!

The plot is pretty convoluted at first, but episode by episode it starts to clear up, along with Mike Atlas's mind. As he learns, so do we.

In some ways the show is full of detective tropes. But there is new ground here, too, thanks to real-world immigration issues in Europe.

I think the series was fine with 6 episodes. I look forward to seeing if it really needed 10.

By the way, I enjoyed that on Netflix I could switch back and forth between English dubbing and the original German.

I DO recommend this to those that like complicated cop shows combined with murder mysteries. If you want something elevated, ala 'The Wire', this isn't it.

Do you remember either 'Liquid Sky' or 'Repo Man'? Low-budget sci-fi that did a lot because of the committed cast and crew and clever scripts. Here you go again, but more modern. Or is it?

I was skeptical, then sucked into the world of 'The Endless'. Obviously low-budget, and it takes multiple leaps of faith, but damn if they (Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead) don't pull it off. While this may not be a true 10 out of 10, I gave it 10 because of the sheer ballsiness of these guys. I'm sorry I didn't see this when it first came out.

A hippy, trippy, time-bending loop of a film. What if there really WERE things 'out there' toying with us, making us repeat mistakes over and over? Can our heroes escape the fates of the others?

Dated and modern, original and Twilight Zone-ish, too-clever but too fun, this is a film for those who want something different and appreciate filmmakers putting it all on the line. I don't do many reviews on here, but I just had to on 'The Endless'. Unexpected, weird, shoestring joy. David Lynch meets that one guy you knew from film study in college once.

You young'uns simply won't get how great this is, how much this means to me, and how shocking it is to me this even got made!

The title is so weird I simply missed it when it came out in 2018. I stumbled across it today and loved it soooo much! It has a great cast portraying a great cast! It's accurate comedic history that anyone who has enjoyed watching SNL or any Nat Lamp movie must see! It's a superhero origin story, if that story was cocaine-fueled tragicomedy.

I have a couple of memories of Doug Kenney to share... First, I read ALL of the National Lampoon stuff from the 70s into the 80s I could get my hands on. I bought, read over and over, and laughed out loud at Kenney's satirical 'Bored of the Rings' (written with Henry Beard). In fact, decades later I Captained a trivia team named 'Bored of the Rings'.

'National Lampoon's 1964 High School Yearbook', heavily read, is still in my attic. I'll have to get it out now and read it again for the 12th time.

I submitted a small joke to the magazine that got published. That copy of the magazine will be in my will.

Also, the movie left out the final Doug Kenney 'joke', a terrific memory for me, written by Matty Simmons. National Lampoon's tribute to Kenney was an editorial by Simmons and a cartoon of a sign next to the edge of a cliff with the inscription, 'Doug Kenney Slipped Here.' I was so happy and sad when I read it an eon ago.

I read some of the reviews here, and I can tell those who are my age and get the film, and those who think it's just another dumb Netflix movie. It's not, damn you! This was a movie made with love and sarcasm, so you better love it, too, or I'll kill this dog-eared magazine!

A spy thriller that's been done plenty of times before. Didn't read the novel, and now don't feel the need to. My biggest issue has to do with the acting, including the male lead. He was a cardboard cutout of FBI/Secret Service "square-jaws" we've all seen too often. And plenty of poor acting 'accolades' to the rest of the cast, except for Luciane Buchanan, the female lead. While we've seen this 'damsel-in-distress' character many times, Buchanan brings a modern sensibility to her role. She was the best thing about the series. She is in danger, but when she takes action it seems fairly realistic to the character.

Someone on here asked, 'Why the bad reviews?'. Welp, bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, and MANY plot holes. That's why. I fast-forwarded through much of the show because it was so cringey and predictable.

Watch Krasinski's Jack Ryan series to see something superior (although the current season wasn't as good as the prior ones).

You're posting reviews for a music video, but think you're posting for the 2019 film. How obtuse can you be? The 1 star is for the site reviewers who don't know what day it is...

A reviewer on May 24 said this is the worst game ever made. Huh? He was obviously trolling. Or he was playing the Crash Bandicoot game-within-a- game over and over. In other words, he is clueless or a joker. Or both.

Full disclosure-- I have never played a Nathan Drake game. I played solo game.

I thought the graphics, especially the faces, were incredible. The gameplay was amazingly smooth. I said 'Wow' out loud more than once as chases transferred from game-controlled to player-controlled and back again. So smooth!

The storyline was epic.

The only reason this got a 9 instead of a 10 was the redundancy of some of the climbing and jumping. Slogging through so many of those was work instead of fun.

Every PS4 owner should play this!

My wife and I, after seeing Pete Jones pop up, simultaneously watched seasons 1 and 4. It was pretty interesting. Pete Jones had a hard time getting a handle on how to direct, but had a mélange of guys around him arguing over production issues. Jason Mann had a clear vision of what he wanted, pulled off some excellent directorial skill, and had one producer bring her drama. If I were to hire for a small film, Pete Jones would write the screenplay by himself, Jason Mann would only direct, and Effie Brown would have nothing to do with the production.

The film looked nice, moved along towards where it was headed, and had some good actors. Whatever was in Jason Mann's head did not translate to an overall satisfying experience. As I write this, I'm surprised the movie is at 3.9 on IMDb. I thought it would be closer to a 5. But I have to agree with the 3.9, 3 of which go to Tom Bell and Ed Weeks. If not for them, this film would be a disaster. It's obvious the best parts of the film were ad-libs between the two male leads.

It's my opinion that Effie Brown is a racist. Her complaining about the 'lily-whiteness' (her term) and focus on black crew-members betrays her. I have no issue with blacks, and other non-whites, getting a foot in the door in Hollywood. It's obvious to me that Effie Brown made sure the crew was out-of-proportion black-versus-white-versus-the-population. Her personal agenda became an albatross around the neck of the production. If she were reading this now, her eyes would be open, with a fake, wide, rueful smile to go with it. This was not the production to bring that drama. I hope she gets stuck on Tyler Perry films.

Jason Mann may or may not learn his lesson. It is telling that HBO's head, Len Amato, said he would want time before working with Jason Mann again. It was ridiculous that Len Amato had to hand-hold the end of production (that may be why he gets paid the big bucks). Jason Mann has not earned his stripes before or after this production. His skill as a director is evident. He understands lighting, angles, background, set-up, timing, and editing. His next project should be with the condition that he only direct, and direct as he is told by the producer (and as the script dictates). He made a blunder when he stated something along the lines of, "The director gets the final say in the creative process." Noooo, that is what Woody Allen gets to say/do. The director does his/her job, and the MONEY gets to say from the outset who has the final creative say. Now, if "The Leisure Class" makes $20,000,000, then I know nothing. Somehow I think it won't.

P.S. Imagine Woody Allen in the Bruce Davison role, and whimsy instead of drama. THAT would be a Woody Allen film to see, and with the EXACT SAME script!

*SPOILERS*

The 60 year-old women on IMDb who recall this as a favorite childhood memory should perhaps re-watch this from the jaded 21st century point of view, knowing that the filmmakers squeezed as much sex as they thought they could get away with in this film.

I recently watched this for the first time, and was surprised at the blatant and not-so-blatant innuendos.

The first thing that struck me was the opening scene, where director Hill got as many up-skirt panty shots as possible. If you pay attention, he does this again later. Why were panty shots needed, George?

One of the reviewers here asked about the necessity of Boothy. It was pretty obvious to me this was a closeted lesbian relationship.

Paula Prentiss wants to commit adultery, and c**k teases Henry Orient quite a bit.

Henry Orient becomes the sex fantasy of mother and daughter, with one having intercourse, and the pubescent one thinking about it to the point of tears.

The end of the movies shows the pubescent girls putting on heavy make- up, including "lipstick the color of a scarlet gash".

Now that I have all of you prudes up in arms, let me say this-- It was an enjoyable film, mostly due to Tippy Walker. She showed such promise I'm sorry she didn't get into more films.

The music and cinematography were great.

Many reviewers here say they wanted more Peter Sellers, and that he wasn't funny enough. I disagree. Just the right amount, and he was very funny, especially the accents.

I watched this movie because it got 3 1/2 stars out of 4 on Xfinity. Sorry, but it doesn't hold up that well. And denying the constant message of sex, however undertone, is simply wrong.

I am a 48 year-old guy, who is only partially geek/nerd. And I loved this movie! So much better than what I was expecting! Clever, hip, fun, visually stimulating, touching, and real yet unreal. It occurred to me while watching this that they threw the kitchen sink AND the rest of the plumbing into it. Crazy plot, too-cool-for-school characters, slapstick, modern and refreshing effects and style, a GREAT soundtrack, fast pace, dynamic scenes, and an out-of-this-world video-game-as-movie experience. Absolutely original! For those of us that get tired of the same-ol' same-ol' from Hollywood, let me say THANK YOU to those that made this! I went without my fiancée, because she WANTS the same old Hollywood crap (she wants to see 'The Switch. Ugh.). And did I mention the SOUNDTRACK! Awesome! I will buy it off iTunes tonight! It's too bad that the twenty-something's that this movie caters to can't appreciate this film enough. They are so jaded that they EXPECT stuff like this. They have no clue how rare this gem is.

Because I had heard so much buzz about the film, I tried to not learn anything more. That helped, because as I watched the film, I didn't know where it was heading, and got nice surprise after surprise.

It's a shame that other writers, producers, and directors can't have visions like this. They spew out the same 'Transformers' and 'GI Joe' crap year after year, thinking CGI and explosions makes a good film.

Don't get me wrong-- 'District 9' has plenty of explosions and CGI, but they make sense, add to the visual excitement, and feel realistic. For a tiny budget (by Hollywood standards), they pulled off something amazing.

I honestly don't know if my fiancée would like this. I decided to watch this without her, knowing I'd probably like it. It's good enough for me to see again, and maybe I'll take her (she went to see 'The Time Traveler's Wife' with a friend instead. Without even seeing it, I'll bet I can tell you the beginning, middle, and end of that movie).

'District 9' seems ready-made for a sequel: 'District 10'.

If you enjoy intelligent, witty, well-made science fiction films, and can handle some gore, this is the movie for you.

I almost gave this a 10, but that's reserved for movies like 'The Godfather', I'm afraid.

You know what makes a great film? Something that makes you feel deeply at the end. That's real art.

Here is what this film has:

1) A great, true story that is Capraesque. 2) Excellent acting. 3) Fine direction. 4) Emotional impact.

I have watched this movie many times, and it never gets old. I love films based upon true stories in which Hollywood would have a hard time making up.

By the way, a great family film.

I tried to give this a 3. Then a 2. But really, this is an awful film. It gets a 1. And I'm pretty generous with schlocky type movies.

I saw this as a 14 year-old, and I liked it. Now I suspect even 14 year-olds will find it corny.

The effects, acting, directing, and plot are all bad.

(I thoroughly enjoyed the recent Peter Jackson remake. I wonder if I'll laugh at that in 20 years?) Jessica Lange has bad teeth, fake boobs, an unbelievable character that spouts laugh-out-loud dialogue, and chews the scenery (which is hard to do against Kong). Go see her in 'Frances' instead.

Rick Baker walking around in a monkey suit looks like, well, a guy walking around in a gorilla suit.

The rubber hands bend as they grab Dwan (omg, even her name is funny, and listen to her explain it in the dialogue).

There is no chemistry between the two leads.

Carlo Rambaldi, the special effects guy, does much better work a few years later on 'E.T.'. His Kong stuff looks amateurish. It was a thankless, impossible task to build a 'giant robot' Kong! Lol, just typing that is funny.

Even the last shot is funny, as some goofball is waving to the camera. I'll bet to this day he is proud of that (you can see it in the upper left).

I could go on and on. This is NOT a guilty pleasure for me, as some post. This is cornball junk, and poorly-made to boot.

I looked up the top ten grossing films for 1976. King Kong is number 5. Every other film on that list is better, and that is a 'populist' decree, not critics'. 'Rocky', 'Silver Streak', 'The Omen', 'Marathon Man', 'All the President's Men', etc. Go see those.

I saw a midnight showing last night. Mostly males in their early 20's, but about 10% gals, too. I was a fan of the graphic novel when it first came out to show you how old I am. Two questions arise: Does it hold up well against the graphic novel, and is it a good movie? Well, you will never be able to live up to the graphic novel, I'm afraid. It is truly apples and oranges. But I happen to like BOTH apples and oranges. So I can separate the two as an original fan and a movie fan. There are details, nuances, and depth that the movie could never get into. If you like graphic novels, or really good books in general, you should go out and buy Watchmen and enjoy it. I'm going to re-read it. But No, due to the details, it doesn't hold up.

Now, how about just as a movie? It is truly an amazing achievement. It is eye-popping, it soars, it has characters you care about, and best of all, it's LONG. In a good way. The length allows you to really get into the story and characters, in much the same way the long movie 'Dark Knight' did. In fact, if you liked Dark Knight for its story, you'll definitely love Watchmen.

There will be some fanboys who will NEVER love this movie, just like its creator, Alan Moore, doesn't. Too bad for both. They are close-minded.

Superman has been re-told over and over in various forms and story lines. It hasn't hurt the overall mythology, has it? Enjoy this once-in-a-lifetime mythology. There will be no sequels or re-makes. And enjoy it on the big screen with someone who loves big blockbuster movies that are NOT Indiana Jones.

I gave it an 8 instead of a 10 because while you DO care about the characters, you simply can't care about them deeply enough, ala Slumdog Millionaire. So instead of leaving the theater with leftover roller-coaster, powerful emotions like Slumdog, you leave happy after having watched the type of big film that Hollywood, and not Bollywood, can make.

There are many comparisons to 'Rocky' in that this is a movie about a down-and-out athlete with a final chance at glory. Well, as much as Sly made a little film, it was still a Hollywood audience-pleaser. This is beyond gritty, with no qualms about leaving the audience let down. Sean Penn in 'Milk' might deserve the Oscar, but Mickey Rourke may get it. Sean Penn is an Oscar-winner, and while he is at the top of his game, he is still 'acting' in a Hollywood-type film. Mickey Rourke IS The Wrestler. This is a one-time only chance for him to win, since we are basically seeing his real life of the last 20 years play out allegorically. Since Penn has already won, Rourke may walk away with the statue. 'The Wrestler' surprised me with how it failed to pull its punches, so to speak. It was barbaric, rough, claustrophobic, and pathetic. I gave it a 7 because of the balance between Rourke's great performance, and the film's refusal to let us enjoy it. Marisa Tomei was a revelation-- her performance was difficult and fearless. I was with an audience of mostly middle-aged people who couldn't get into 'The Reader' or 'Milk' because they were sold out. The quiet at the end of the film told me they were just hit over the head with a metal folding chair, and were a bit stunned. My girlfriend had to close her eyes at some of the more brutal scenes. This is a tough-as-nails, street, gritty and grimy movie that just isn't for everyone. Thank God for films like this.

I took my 15 year-old daughter, who had never seen the original show. She thought it was very, very funny. So obviously the makers did something right! I thought it was funny, with some scenes outright hilarious, but it isn't an all-time great comedy. The best thing about the film, EASILY, is Steve Carell. He underplays the part perfectly. It was nice to see that he was a very good agent right from the beginning-- in fact, too good. That decision made his foibles more realistic and fun as he becomes a field agent and not a desk-jockey. Anne Hathaway was a good choice, and I am now picturing outtakes, with Carell busting her up. The movies starts off a little straightforward and not that funny, but the comedy builds and builds, so hang in there and enjoy the ride. I am also pleased by the nice box office opening weekend. It deserved it. I had a choice of taking my daughter to see Zohan, which she wanted to do. I decided not to, because I knew I would be uncomfortable with the borderline R-rated jokes that Sandler stuffs his films with. Good pick on my part, since Get Smart earns it's PG-13 rating without constant sex jokes, but action, language, and jokes that are just past PG. My daughter and I had a good time, and isn't that the point? Finally, some trivia for you-- Get Smart was the first TV show with a big-screen adaptation. That was an unfunny movie from 1980 (I think) called The Nude Bomb, with Don Adams.

I took my girlfriend and watched Speed Racer on Imax. Fortunately she also had watched the cartoons, so knew the characters. We definitely enjoyed it, and thought it better than what we were expecting. All movies should be seen on Imax, by the way-- yum. I loved the car, Emile Hirsch was excellent in that he had to play an iconic live-action cartoon hero, and the supporting cast was good (not great). The visuals are as stunning as you've heard. They are NOT as non-stop distracting as you may have read. Plenty of breaks in between the big races. It is obvious the Wachowski brothers love Speed, and truly did their best to put it all out there. Now, however, a note to Larry and Andy. Here is what you did wrong, and this is coming from a fan: You made the movie too long; 15 minutes shorter would have been better. This could have been accomplished in things like cutting the corporate menace down to the gist, since the convoluted version of it was a mess in the drama department. You also could have trimmed some sportscasters down, some of the races, and some of the personal scenes that came off as too corny. I didn't like the non-stop car spinning. I know the cartoon had spinning, but never as much. So much of computer car spinning had me realizing there was no sense of danger. Veering slightly out of control but moving straight ahead would have been better. You spent too much money on effects not necessary. The whole corporate monolith with its busy bees structure reminded me of the over-stuffed modern Star Wars Coruscant scenes. You didn't spend enough time working on the Speed and Trixie love story. You could have stayed PG with it and not been bloated, but we should care more about that relationship (a big reason folks love movies). Some parts of the races were filmed so hectic as to make them incomprehensible. Ugh. An example of an elegant race scene you did right was driving up the cliff with spiked tires. But even THAT was messed up when the annoying announcers said that Speed was driving up the cliff as we were watching it. The drama of the moment and a good soundtrack of the Speed theme would have sufficed. Okay, back to the good... I'm glad the movie was made, it was fun, brought back memories, and appreciate the care the Wachowskis took. Thank you!

So many 60's era films are dated. They have laughable hair, clothes, and set lighting. The acting chews the scenery, the music is maudlin, and the writing is unintentionally funny. 'Hard Contract' is all of these things. The story of a killer who sees the light is drawn out, tedious, ponderous, and not believable. The story has an unsatisfying ending. I only gave it a couple of stars because Lee Remick's character is disgustingly sexy, and I found myself staring at her. By the way, what DOES a GOOD 60's era film look like? How about 'In The Heat of the Night'? That was raw and gritty and believable. Or how about 'The Sound of Music', which makes no claim to be anything other than frivolous fun, and does so? This trite junk, however, grates and makes me feel old, and the film seems even older.

OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie...

This movie gets 9 stars for the brilliance of Adrienne Shelly. I read up on her after watching 'Waitress' and found that her film history goes back to 1989, although most Americans haven't heard of her. She has been acting and directing for a long time, and even though I haven't seen her other films, I suspect they are directed with feminine, independent panache. It is truly a Shakesperean tragedy that once Ms. Shelly reached the pinnacle of her career she was cut down. There is no other movie this wonderful, that is written, directed and co-starred by a woman, who is then silenced. Now, apart from the praise of Ms. Shelly, the movie itself is amazing. It is low-budget but doesn't act it. That is thanks to the insightful, funny and touching script, and the set pieces that take place in a small town. I rented this DVD for my girlfriend and me to watch, knowing we would enjoy it based solely on reviews I had read. Keri Russell was incredible; I had no idea she was this skilled as an actress. Every supporting character has a purpose, and we become invested in them. The husband is the worst I have ever seen portrayed; I suspect that Ms. Shelly took every horrible line she had ever heard louts utter and inserted them into the mouth of this Neanderthal. I said to my girlfriend at one point, "I'm embarrassed to be a guy right now." The pies are brilliant and sensuous; my girlfriend in particular liked the 'Naughty Pumpkin Pie'. The movie is a romantic comedy/fantasy drama. It is both real and unreal, taking place in a universe just slightly out of sync with our own. It is a slice of pie heaven that will leave you wanting seconds. P.S. Cheryl Hines, always good and who plays the third waitress after Keri Russell and Adrienne Shelly, is set to direct Ms. Shelly's apparent last script, 'Serious Moonlight', set to be released in 2009. I'm already looking forward to it.

I can think of no other movie that has as many big stars all acting like wood and speaking constant clichés. The writer and director were clearly looking at the big picture, and you'll have to as well. Pay no attention to the laughable sub-plot lines and dialogue, and ignore the high school acting. From a historical perspective, the movie is informative and really does try to put you at that point in time. As a popcorn historical war film it is entertaining enough. That's why I gave it a 7. (Same goes for 'Pearl Harbor' by the way. Another good war film doomed by bad sub-plotting.) Fast forward past the mini-dramas amongst the characters and get to the good stuff. The characters' angst doesn't matter and you won't care about missing it.

I read both books, and saw both movies, when they first came out. I have recently re-watched both films. I have enjoyed reading the wide-ranging ratings of viewers of 2010. I can't think of another film on IMDb.com that has so many saying it's terrible on one side, and so many saying it's great on the other. Hardly anyone is neutral, and the votes truly seem split. That kind of stuff is actually good for cinemaphiles, I believe. How many reviews saying how great 'Citizen Kane' is do we need? In any case, it should make more folks want to watch or re-watch both, and that's good. 2010 is frustrating because it wants to be a polished, intelligent follow-up to 2001, yet in today's spoiled climate of jaded moviegoers it sometimes misses the mark for today's expectations. It is well-acted in some scenes, and poorly acted in others. It is thrilling in some scenes, flat in others. The special effects seem dated sometimes, and really good other times. Had I written this in 1984, I would have given it a higher rating for sure. Today, side-by-side, 2001 is better as a visual, intellectual exercise, and 2010 is better as a straight-forward, above-average, more literal and modern sci-fi film. Yet it is for that exact reason 2001 will always be considered superior. Having said that, for fans of good cinema, and intelligent science fiction, a watching of both films in correct order is a must. Together they will make you think about your tiny place in the universe.

The characters go around completely oblivious to how pointless their lives are. They think they have perfect marriages-- they don't. Perfect jobs-- nope. Perfect health even though they constantly smoke and drink-- nope. We can look back and see how phony it all was-- the advertising, the plastic homes and lives, and the social niceties and expectations. And here's the punchline-- it's US! TODAY! And that's the brilliance of the show. Today we are the same with different clothes and cars. We are jaded, full of irony and smarm, and believe we are self-aware. Imagine how a TV show (hologram show?) will look back at the sad folks of 2007 45 years from now. We tune out, blame others, scan the internet for porn, buy $5 coffee, and still can't fix the health care system. Apart from the amusement of looking into a 47 year-old mirror, the show gives us tremendous writing, acting, set decoration and drama. Let me re-emphasize my favorite part of the show-- set decoration. Kudos all around at the insistence of having the look of every scene strike me as true and accurate to the nth degree. I have watched each of the first episodes three times each. I love it!

(PS to those idiots chatting endlessly about electric typewriters and such: That's the smarminess I'm talking about. What would you rather watch? 'Flavor of Love'? 'The Steve Harvey Show'? 'According to Jim'? Gimme a break! Just enjoy a quality show while you can!!!)