Reviews

This is comedy? Didn't laugh once.

Worse watching this than experiencing 2020.

Would not recommend.

This is a brilliant piece of work but nihilistic, and people need to be prepared for the horror they are about to see.

The opening certainly offers more than foreshadowing. it is the film.

Reading some reviews and ratings it seems some people don't get this movie, or refuse to, are emotionally contra prepared to.

This movie is about the terror of existence. Of not knowing. Of not knowing about life. We're here, then we're not here. Plucked like the blind chicks from the nest.

One of the most frequent criticisms of the movie is that it didn't go into more depth, didn't explain more, or provide more. For those expecting that it was slow, and not enough happening. But its part of the brilliance of this artwork, that the movie parallels the lack of meaning known in life. That life is a large unknown. That the only reasons life exists is to perpetuate life, For replacements, until human or other life doesn't exist. The movie captured the fate of life indelibly. .

I couldn't imagine this movie being acted any better. All the contributions were excellent, and felt.

If you watched this movie and didn't feel your own mortality, your own life's meaning flashing you didn't follow the message of this film. Or you were not wanting to. Which is understandable. This is the most emotionally difficult of films.

This movie parallels the schoolgirl experiencing the horror of life and death. its about all of us, Metaphorically the chicks are us. Trapped in our nests and unknowing lives. Depending on food to be dropped to the nest.

Its sheer serendipity that the movie is being watched during the greatest threat to life that many of have ever known, during a pandemic That we are now at our closest point of being able to grasp the concept of our mortality within our usually busy and distracted lives.

The choice whether to consider this film equals our choice to consider life and death itself.

Could have been so much better. Either theres selective artistic licence going on or the production only had rights to limited catalog of songs and artists.

First episode was passable except for all the time spent covering a band called Love. 2nd episode jumps right into the bizarre spending so much time on Little Feat, Bonnie Raitt (absolutely unheard of at the time) and propping up the likes of Flying Burrito Brothers and Gram Parsons as if they were music gods. The flat out of ideas Byrds got more airplay than their seminal first albums did. A travesty. 8 Miles high nowhere in the mix.

One gets the feeling the producers virtually hated Neil Young. Or have no access to his vast catalog. Again to spend so much time on the Burrito Bros and none on the solo Neil Young. Absolutely absurd. Neil Young doesn't exist in this documentary save for some pictures and being with CSN and Buffalo Springfield. Stills not put in a good light either.

Could do without the Steve Martin seques or Charles Manson either. Documentary spent more time than required on that and the connections have been covered duly in other books, productions.It was enough to just mention the zeitgeist of the time being so interrupted and changing the free feeling of the era.

AS others have mentioned Carol King or Frank Zappa could have got some consideration. They were actually listened to at the time.

On a positive note Joni Mitchell was captured very well, and deservedly so. At least she got the recognition. A nice part about her and Nash and the inspiration for "Our House". Mitchell indeed captured the era, the time, as well as anyone and her peace shone through more than most.

This is worth a watch, but not worth seeing again. 2nd episode was mostly a waste of time. Its hard to get this material so wrong. There so much that was happening, so much that defined it, artists that made it, most of their best contributions are completely missing from the documentary.

My wife, who wanted to watch this, fell asleep on two successive attempts to watch this film.

Myself I liked Casey Afflecks performance. Albeit over the top in his morose depiction.

As a movie this staggers along. As with many such movies of the day it engages in numerous flashbacks, at first almost indistinguishable and to a degree that they become highly distracting. I can't count the number of chronological diversions in this film. Nor is it clear how they add as device. Instead they seem to occur for the sake of it as this is the present day version of Hollywood story telling. With people confusing 20something flashbacks as a riveting film requiring apt attention. If a book read this way you would close the cover and chuck it.

Still, I put together the countless disconnected weaves of this story into the kind of understanding of it that was intended. But still with several gaping holes in the plot.

For instance the son is the progeny of a great caring man but he is somehow aloof, mean, and a chronic womanizer. With no explanation given for how this has come to pass or for why he needs a girlfriend of the day or is consumed by serial sex and or is attractive to the opposite sex. The boy would more properly be considered as a walking disaster younger version of his distraught uncle. Avoid at all costs would basically be stamped on his disturbed forehead.

His mother is mentally ill, apparently is the nude on the couch although this was another flashback and poorly captured and easily missed. The movie didn't cover this at all. Why the mother is even introduced in the film is not well understood. Nor is the brief depiction of the visit adding anything to the film but an opportunity for a weird cameo by Matthew Broderick.

Then the strange chicken scene. The oddest depiction of grief seen and I'm not saying that kindly. The scene was stupid, poorly conceived, poorly acted, poorly understood. Through others comments I'm supposed to equate this somehow to Patricks father being in a morgue freezer. oh..

The worst scene, and acting was Casey trying to shoot himself in the police station. A depiction of the over melodrama taken in this film.

Or of a hero, the protagonist, so willing to be lifelong destroyed by the fire that he would kill himself, cast away anybody that loved him or dared to try to love him (again with the unlikeliness that females would line up to throw themselves at such a depressive character) and indeed casts the boy away despite him owing his departed brother dearly. Indeed the last potential gift that life gave him to have any meaningful role he casts away so that he can rot in his eternal peace of self loathing and hate. The film ends on that note, with him giving up yet again.

Its that kind of film and that kind of modern day hero I guess. Not sure what else to make of it. I enjoyed moments in the film as long as I was watching it. In retrospect it was nothing but idiosyncratic.

Good films capture the essence of life, of growing up, the pain, the exclusion, the dynamics that are often felt, and less explored.

I shared the tears of Conrad during the telling "Walk with Melanie" part in which the self reflection recognizes, in the moment, a special time with an adored person that will never come to anything. The tears flowing perhaps at recognition of that, or that the person is not the idol you make them to appear and that its all for not anyway. Who hasn't had an experience like that during a boyhood crush?

The interaction between the brothers is breathtaking and the advice not to share the letter is classic indication of love, of the older brother understanding the pain and not wanting Conrad to further inure his pain.

Strangely though the minutes with Melanie ends up being a tonic for Conrad in which he could move through his pain, even obtain reassurance that it was nice that Melanie could even think that Tuesday lunch would be nice with him. Its touching too in that it is obvious that Conrad, and Jonah are intellects and the girl, in reality, through the described misplaced High School hierarchy, probably looks up to Conrad as well albeit this can't be communicated within the high school corridors of cool.

I comment extensively on the Walk with Melanie part of the movie because it is one of the classic unsequestered young love moments captured in modern film. So eloquent even within the context of what the sad

and tenuous connection was. Walking an inebriated girl home and there being no other connection. With the soundtrack grabbing hold at that exact moment and reprised in the closing credits with the namesake "louder than bombs" perfectly capturing the emotion of the film.

The whole film is mesmerizing albeit I felt the mother, played by Isabel Huppert was weak. Perhaps because she was so unlikable. The movie did not accurately or meaningfully depict how a women would chose war correspondence over caring for her children or how and why that would occur. Nor did it explain a women falling for a despicably played Richard (David Straithairn) who I have liked in films but who played an unlikable character in this one. Plus that she is married to Gabriel Byrne. One has to suspend belief to believe that somebody would prefer Straithairn over Byrne. Or that his children would find him so unlikable. Perhaps some casting mistakes but the brothers, and Melanie, and the teacher were letter perfect casting.

Rarely have I seen a movie so consistently inept. How do you even take Sean Penn, France McDormand, a David Byrne soundtrack, Robert Smith styling, and make it all suck? I love all of the above and detested the movie enough to wonder how anybody signed on for it.

Disclosure here that I have no familiarity with the director and have not seen his previous works. So that I do not comprehend what he was trying to accomplish with this stilting disjointed film. But even the premise of the film is of negligible interest to me. This was simply on TV, and so I watched it, thinking how bad could a movie with Sean Penn and Frances McDormand get? Although with the plot synopsis I had forewarning it wasn't my type of film.

This would appear to be the type of weird work that foreshadows that even the most accomplished actors make mistakes, get involved in films they probably shouldn't, and get swayed by something in order to be part of the project.

I'm trying to fathom any portion of this film that is redeeming or that makes it worth watching. Very rarely would I state this, I want my 2hrs back.

I've had some time to review the reviews of this miniseries. It would seem that the subset of posters that moan "why would anybody watch this depressing series and mean spirited" title character are predisposed to not like an excellent, and nuanced drama and see it instead as trauma. One poster went as far as to say why would they "hurt" themselves by watching this. It seems the point that this is a character study seldom found on TV was missed by those predisposed to miss it.

A few other things missed. The show details a fascinating study of interpersonal attitudes. On a surface Olive is "mean spirited", but more objectively she is a conduit of truth going her entire life stating what is fairly accurate feedback. She is highly intelligent, analytical, (Math teacher) and see's through others shortcomings, challenges, and openly comments on them. For this, in an age of non stop reinforcement, coddling, unconditional regard, she is viewed as a "witch" evil, destructive, and generally the reason all is wrong with others. Ignoring entirely the shortcomings, or very similar nihilism exhibited by almost all the other characters. Starting with her son who this viewer also saw as "mean spirited" but without any regard, and less virtue. The son seems to evaluate every adult he comes into contact with dismissively, or with lack of regard. From the outset one see's this character as one who will go through the rest of their life in therapy, blame others for their being, and while being caustic in interactions and even with peers. Including the student who Olive defended. A student she defended from cruelty, and even from her own son. The son exists as a borderline sociopath throughout. Not connected with family enough to even spend time at the dinner table. Judging and smirking in nearly every scene. Seemingly oblivious to any of his own interactional characteristics. Later in life we see the son as somebody who is a punitive rather than permissive with children and who has oddly learned to be inflexible and impatient as a parent but who now rants about the influences of Olive while doing worse to the children he rears.

Lost entirely is the son living a comparatively idyllic life on a beautiful property in Maine. A property with beach, walking paths, places for children to explore. What child wouldn't love that opportunity? Contrast this with the bombed out backyard in the neighborhood with dog feces sidewalks and urban decay that the younger couple has chosen as a place to raise children. Complete with a spouse who drinks during pregnancy because yeast is good or some such nonsense. In other words harming a child even before birth. But this same mother, despite her own obvious flaws (for instance not providing her progeny with stable fathers or stable upbringing) is flatly dismissive of Olive making her apologize to an acting out child, demeaning her, talking down to her, and figuratively with Olive put in the dingy basement room which is symbolic of imposed hierarchy. Contrast this with the beautiful property and house granted to Chris and his short lived wife. These are intentionally put in as contrasting comparisons of respective treatment.

Reasonable commentary can occur that the truly " mean spirited" actions are taken up by some of the younger people featured in the series that are entirely dismissive, mocking, and mean at least in response to Olive. Because she doesn't match the unconditional regard prototype, and she is instead, honest. Watch the series a second time and witness how many times Olive is actually wrong in an assessment. She merely lacks the white lies inherent in contrived nicety. The kind of nicety that smiles at you with forced raised lips but that curses and demeans the mother of the son at her wedding when Olive is thought not to be in earshot.

Another inter-generational prejudice is featured when the Fathers ex employee openly, and contemptuously questions the sale of the pharmacy and that they take advantage of "people like you". The disrespect was so blatant that the nice to a fault Henry was virtually forced to respond "its none of your business". The employee owes Henry his career, his opportunity, and even his wife (which Henry setup) but is openly disrespectful of him. An under riding theme throughout is a world turned upside down (or is it) of children in control, of parents getting down on their knees apologizing, and ignoring behavior at every turn. Interestingly the same Chris who viewed his parents relationship dismissively engages in a marriage that lasts a few months and in which he is sleeping in bed, while his wife curses looking for an earring on the wedding night. A couple who's relationship was over before it even started.

Interestingly the few deepest characters in the movie, including the husband, and Bill Murray, as well as the depressed young man, and the waitress, they get Olive, they get what she see's. In the end Olive saved all of them and including herself. That's the last, and integral part missed, is that Olive isn't just mean, she's a seeing savior.

Absolute comic book crap.

Canadian Fur Trade meets Game of Thrones and Blackstone, everybody has a bad day and dies.

The Canadian Fur Trade saga and exploration of this land is an interesting enough story in itself, and that could be retold without GOT formulaic drama. This production instead renders itself meaningless instead of what could be an actual historical rendition that could be interesting while helping teach the History of the founding of this country. With this series the actual history, story, is only vague backdrop to scripted formula.

"World class writing". Is this what passes for series script writing in present day? Sad.

To those that think an accurate rendition of history is impossible revisit the CBC's "National Dream" series. At least that one tried to capture the actual history.