Reviews

Despite what that delusional negative reviewer said, I think this show had a great, well written start. Great noir nods with fantastic acting to boot. Farrell turn in his usual stellar performance. The relationship between Sugar is wonderfully interesting, nuanced, and complicated, I guess some people need everything spelled out for them in the first fifteen minutes in order to "get into it." The pace isn't lightening quick but I wouldn't call it slow. The plot/set up is hardly groundbreaking, it's a typical neo noir plot, but if you're a fan of that stuff you should enjoy it. Also if you're familiar with old movies in general you should enjoy the many references. Most "professional" critics also enjoy it, despite what some people who clearly only read reviews they agree with might claim. I only watched the first two and I'm very excited to see where it goes. It could go bad, I've watched many show that start strong and become a mess but I'm very hopeful. The writer is a pretty solid out of the box thinker (he also wrote The Cell) so that's a good sign.

Wow! I don't know why this movie is getting beat up so bad. I thought it was thoroughly enjoyable. The cast was great. There were lots of fun twists, maybe too many, but it was highly entertaining. Rockwell os such a great actor and Bryce Dallas Howard does a great job as the lead. The supporting characters were all fun. Perhaps some of them could be developed better but it hardly hurt the movie. I will say it could have used a trim. It felt a little long. They could have cut out a action sequence, or two. Other than that, I'm not sure what people expected. People complain about not having enough fun original movie not based on comic book. Then this come along, check all of those boxes and people bash it. Is it perfect? No. But how many movies really are. This was a fun, exciting and funny popcorn flick like all those 90s movies people of my generation are so nostalgic for. I think people just like to complain.

I hate to say, I'm overall disappointed. I really wanted to enjoy this but it fell flat for me. I figured John Woo going back to straight up action will be a treat. Instead of using the idea of a dialogueless action flick as an interesting device he creates a very drab story that is less than appealing. He makes little effort in trying interesting ways to propel the story within the confines he set up. It's like he never watched a silent movie and saw how you can tell a compelling story with minimal dialogue. He just leans on lame cliches. Also there's too many logical errors, even for an action movie. And Joel Kinnaman, who I normally like, makes a less than appealing protagonist. Even without speaking his character seems annoying. An unfortunate misfire from something that had a lot of potential.

I am sorry to bother you but, I just don't get this movie. It's satirical but not in an interesting way. The characters make no sense. They just randomly do things constantly contradicting themselves in order to serve the plot, whatever the heck that was. There's humorous things happening but not really funny. Words like "genius" have be used to describe this movie... I don't see it. Various themes and social commentary are obviously made here but nothing that made a real impression on me. They're trying to make a statement but it gets lost in the nonsense. I was just bored. Check it out and make your own decision. I'm just giving you my opinion.

Not really bad but not very good either. This movie attempts to shed light on the quick downward spiral of the "frontrunner" of a democratic presidential campaign in the 80s. The story itself is intriguing but the filmmaker s spend so much time bouncing around trying to show every point of view that whatever notable points they were trying to make get lost in the mix. Privacy has become a major issue in the past thirty years and this moment in history, though brief, gave a perfect example of how we as a people veiw this matter. Hugh Jackman's portrayal of Gary Hart comes off as arrogant, naive, and somewhat flat. The whole thing would be more moving if we had a better idea of who he was as a man. Instead there's a focus on the reporting itself which gives you a bland version of All the Presidents Men.

This shouldn't have been a Child's Play movie. It had nothing to do with Chucky. The whole robot nanny going nuts is fine and interesting but has nothing to do with Child's Play. It's like if someone said "I'm going to remake Die Hard but it'll be about a firefighter who is stuck in a plane that gets set on fire." Um... the concept is decent but what does that have to do with Die Hard? "Oh, the firefighter's name is John McClane and the pilot will be Al." Also there's a subplot with the creepy building maintenance guy who looks like Jack Black which is terrible. Lastly, Mark Hammil is fine but Brad Dourif is the true voice of Chucky, no substitute is acceptable. Bottom line, It would have been better if it was it's own thing... And come to think of it they did, it's called M3gan. And actually I feel like if they plugged in aspects of this script into that one they would have had a better movie.

This flick suffers from a major pacing issue. The editing is way off. Many scenes seem to not flow correctly. The premise is interesting enough: a British mob enforcer's girlfriend goes missing and the person responsible is a scumbag son of an Oil Barron who has a business deal with the enforcer's boss. And of course chaos and moral dilemmas insue. The acting is good enough that the weak dialogue doesn't drag the movie down. Of course Ron Perlman chews up scenery and Vinnie Jones is always a strong presence. I overall enjoyed this flawed movie though I do wish it was in the hands of better filmmakers.

This movie wasn't half bad. It had a decent story and a long list of of good actors, some that were known at the time and some better know after. There are veterans like Ernie Hudson, Tony Todd, Tiny Lister, Robert Miano, Nia Long, and James Russo along with rising stars (at the time) like Shemar Moore, Terrence Howard, Donnie Wahlberg, Sally Richardson-Whitfield, and Donald Faison. Everyone does their best. It was just as poorly put together flick. The director hardly has done anything before or since, and for a good reason. Still worth a watch for a B-movie. The performances keep you from hitting fast-forward, nothing award-winning but most of the talent knows what kind of movie they're making. The two that stand out the most are Ernie Hudson, clearly channeling Suge Knight, and Terrence Howard, who has some of the best line readings of the cheesy cop dialogue.

This little drama represents Viggo Mortenson's writing and directorial debut. It's a small quiet movie about a middle aged gay man (Mortensen) trying to take care of his aging, bigoted father (Lance Henriksen). I know it's got a lot of mixed reviews but I found it quite good. I might be a little biased because I'm a big Lance Henriksen fan but I must say he gives a tremendous performance. He's mainly in Sci-fi or horror films, which I greatly enjoy, but it's nice to see him play something very different. The movie is really a showcase of his acting ability. No his character is not very likeable but there's a rawness that sucks you in. This movie may not appeal to a broad audience but if you like a well acted character piece, and are fans of either of the two leads, you should give it a shot.

This is a good example of a decent premise and cast bogged down by poor "style" choices and unnecessary narration. The filmmakers clearly decided to make up for the low budget by mixing up the story in disjointed flashbacks instead of letting the story flow naturally. Everytime you start to get into a scene BAM they cut into a flashback, and sometimes intercut a flashback with a flashback. They probably thought this was a way to be flashy but, for me, it was just distracting. Then to add to the annoyance, they added a voice over to explain EVERYTHING and introduce characters that don't matter. Things get very cluttered. In the end it just gets in the way of itself. I truly believe if they told a straight forward story they'd have a decent indie/thriller on their hands. Instead it comes off as a bad experiment.

I simply do not understand people's infatuation with this movie. What do they see that I don't? A pointless, predictable, pretentious flim that drags on and on. It felt like a 2+ hour movie. Mia Goth is a good actress, I'm not denying that, but she needs better material. This is a prequel to X, which was okay at best, that sheds very little light on what happens in X. Just a lot of goofing around and mugging for the camera. Apparently Ti West and Mia Goth wrote this while in quarantine to shoot X in during the pandemic. It makes sense because it felt like something that was wrote in a few days and just thrown together. Most of the "character developments" here were implied in X and really didn't need to be shown. What a waste of time.

This was a missed opportunity, in my opinion. It's very flashy and all, but there isn't much there in the end. It has a decent setup: Cruise becomes an instructor to a new team of hot shots, including a son of his fallen friend from the first movie. Good start, right? It's straightforward and provides a decent amount of nostalgia to appease the fans of the original. If only they followed through on what they started. If they only focused on the "teaching" and the interaction with the crew. They gave the whole crew a great introduction in the bar, setting up each character well as the audience sees their dynamics/strengths/flaws. But midway through it quickly switches focus to Cruise and contrived romantic interest Jennifer Connelly, who's likable but pretty pointless. Instead of really teaching these "top guns" anything they just have scene after scene of Cruise out flying with them, with no lessons to be learned. Like, he never confronts the cocky Hangman guy, who is annoyingly arrogant with little reason to be, or really does anything to make any of them better pilots. And he just keeps telling Rooster, Goose's son, to "not think," which means nothing. And speaking of Rooster, actor Miles Teller is his typical cocky character from Whiplash with little depth that keeps you from caring about him in any way. I know I'm the outlier here. Most people loved this sequel, but I just don't see what they see. I see just another lame money grab, which worked. And I'm not against sequels. I love a good sequel if it's done well. This just wasn't, in my opinion.

This third movie from Brett Haley (Hero and I'll See You in My Dreams) is just a joy to watch. Nick Offerman is wonderful as the multilayered lead character and the rest of the cast (including Ted Danson and Toni Collette) are just great. Very well done father daughter story with equal moments of heartfelt humor, touching sadness, and overall strength of spirit elevate the story of a man holding on to the past and his dreams and ultimately learning to let go. And it doesn't have a very hokey ending where they become massive stars and save the store with they're music or anything like that. The triumphs are small but meaningful. It's like a better version of Begin Again with Mark Ruffalo, which I also ejoyed.

Very well done. Paul Giamatti is brilliant, as always. He and Sideway director Alexander Payne sure make a great team. And the kid is very good too, which doesn't always happen. It's a fairly typical story: two social outcasts (for different reasons) are forced to deal with each other during the holidays. But between the tight writing and fantastic performances you're more than willing to go down this somewhat familiar path. Also the third wheel (so to speak) in this is Da'Vine Joy Randolph who is equally fantastic and help makes this film rise above the average indie drama/comedy. Overall, this is a fantastic holiday themed flick with a wonderful balance of comedy and drama.

Very bland. Basically a underwritten Scream script, minus the movie references. Terrible dialog with horribly miscast "teens" that have no chemistry with each other what so ever. The few good veteran actors are wasted. Especially Rick Hoffman who has little to nothing to do. It felt like there was no love in it. You would have thought after all these years Eli Roth would learned how to write dialogue. Even Patrick sounds wooden. He tried to pull off a grindhouse style movie but doesn't have the talent to do pull it off. It feels like it was made because they knew it'd make money and was written by a robot. Very cookie cutter story with a very predictable end.

I think this is a damn fine season. The one thing the negative reviewers are right about is that it doesn't necessarily need to be under the Fargo moniker. Most of it is Kansas based and really could have been anywhere, but has a wonderful tie-in at the end. It's also definitely has a different tone, not quite as quirky but still has funny moments. Outside of that it's very intriguing with a great cast. Chris Rock, Timothy Olyphant, Jack Huston, Glynn Thurman are all top notch. Much better than the third season where Ewan McGregor sloppily played twins, good grief what a snoozefest that was. Yes this season is a little different but that's what I like about it.

Say what you want about Tupac he was a pretty good actor and when paired up with an amazing one like Tim Roth the result is is a exellent movie filled with drugs, drama, and humor. The odd couple play local musicians with a drug habit. Their decision to kick the habit lead them on an adventure that gets them in trouble with local gangsters and the police. This normally dark and grim topic is lightened with comical moments which, wether done on purpose or not, work brillantly. It almost feels like if Martin Scorsese directed a Coen Brothers script. Althpugh instead of Marty we have veteran actor Vondie Curtis Hall, who does a supurb job. This is an overlooked gem that everyone should see.

This is just an overall fun movie. Anthony Edwards plays a hot shot LA detective out for avenge his partner's murder. His scearch leads to New Orleans where he gets help from Lance Henriksen, a former detective who now lives in a swamp. Henriksen and Edwards are outstanding in this buddy-cop flick which I highly recommend. You'll also get to see a very sexy Betsy Russell of Saw fame in a early, and revealing, role. Is it "high brow" or groundbreaking? Absolutely not. It's a cheesy cop thriller with a very tongue-and-cheek tone. It just knows how to have a good time without taking itself too seriously. Plus, if you're a Lance Henriksen fan like me it's an added bonus.

I see that most people who have reviewed this episode seem to hate the whole Tritter storyline. I think it's great! First I love David Morse, who first got noticed in another medical show called St. Elsewhere. And he's nothing like his character on that, who's closer to a Cameron type. I think he does an excellent job here playing basically a cop version of House, he bullies people and bends/ignores rules to solve the case. I know this makes it sound like I don't like House. I love House. He's a great character to watch. I just like this arc. I like how it parallels what House puts people through in order to "do his job." How it flips the script, so to speak, and shows how House feels when someone uses his own tactics against him. Yes, Tritter is doing this as a law enforcement figure which holds a different type of power over people. And for people complaining that Tritter's tactics would get him immediately fired in the "real" world, the same could be said about House. So, if within the world created, House is still employable, keeps his medical license, and hasn't been banned from every hospital in the country then I believe Tritter would still have a badge. Anyway, my point is that I like how this arc challenges both House and his cohorts in different ways, like the Vogler arc did (only different).

What were people expecting? They start the second season with the build up to Covid so of course they're going to end with the climax of it. I thought it was quite compelling and interesting the way they depicted the panic most of us felt when Covid started. I think Jennifer Anniston did a great job here. Her character is very hard to like but she squeezes every ounce of sympathy for someone who is hard to like at times. Didn't find any of this episode boring. Was is more of a premiere of what's to come more than a "finale"? Maybe. The episode before did most of the wrapping up of the season where this episode was more of a moving forward one. But this is hardly the first show to this. Game of Thrones did this constantly. Is this show perfect? No. It's sloppy at times and doesn't know if it wants to be a true ensemble or just focus on it's leads (Anniston/Witherspoon). It often wastes it's (mostly) likeable side/supporting characters or gives them side stories that either don't get enough focus or are barely resolved like Yanko, who I really like. But the cast is solid and the show does a great job of making me want to see what happens next.

This episode was very good and totally moved the plot along. Is it a fast show? No. But it wasn't "fast paced" from the start. The first two episodes were the set up which always seem faster because you're getting to know the universe. The third episode, to me was a little unnecessary. I don't know why they needed to spend like 40 minutes on mechanical repair. I guess it's to establish the Juliet character and show her resolve, which arguably could have been done in less time. But this episode was great. I guess these negative reviewers never heard of character development. The flashbacks were very well done and helped you understand Juliet as a character. Overall this show is incredibly well written and intriguing. And who ever calls Rebecca Ferguson a "no name" must live under a rock. She was in the Mission Impossibles and Doctor Sleep just to name two. She's a very talented actor who does a supurb job here.

This was an utterly fantastic episode. It's nice to take a break from the procedural formula. Great insight to the characters, especially McCoy and Briscoe. I nice to see this cast just act rather than just push the plot/case forward. I enjoy the show and it's procedural format but it's nice to switch it up.

And for the (few) people complaining about it being anti-death penalty, it's not. It's not making a political statement. It's conveying the weight of implementing/witnessing said penalty. I personally go back and forth on whether I am for it or not but I know I'd have more mixed feelings if I witnessed a state execution. That's what this explores and it does it well. No character, other than Claire, expresses they're against it. They just talk about how they feel being a part of the case/trail that end in someone sactioned death. That's interesting to me. And I don't need every character express only opinions I agree with. Shows would be very boring if that happened. If you don't like this episode because of that or that they broke from the procedural format there's almost 500 other episodes you can watch.

Is this episode perfect? No. Are the writers still struggling to find the spark the show had in it original run? Absolutely. But this episode had a lot of good/interesting things in it. There was good tension between the two cop partners, who I really like. I'm not a fan of the lawyer played by Hugh Dancy. I find him incredibly dull and stiff and like it better when they focus on the female ADA, which they don't here. Everytime the focus is on him it's a snoozefest. That's my only issue.

At this point I don't know why people insist on trashing this new incarnation of the original Law & Order. Either you except it's flaws and roll with it or watch something else.

This show is great! The episode in question isn't "the best of the series" but it's still good. It drifts a bit from the main story but is still fun and throws in some relevant commentary which that show has ALWAYS done. And for those who think pay discrepancy isn't still a thing you are woefully ignorant.