Reviews

This series was just a breath of fresh air. TV series' movies, it's all about entertainment. And this show does just that. Far better than most top tier programs, it was the classic Guy Ritchie events of posh and gritty, upper class and raw evil, blood, murder, and entertaining humor. It brought several twists and continual hurdles for the protagonists to overcome. Yet, even the protagonists have their moments where one wonders - who is the good guy/girl and who is the bad guy/girl in this situation?

Theo James was excellent as the central family figure and lead, playing his role as an upper class yet with an experienced toughness. And fearlessness.

The ever attractive Kaya Scodelario plays her role to the hilt. Tough, fearless, and seemingly untouchable - she is superb.

In fact all the acting is exceptional and the actors are perfectly cast to their roles, from Ray Winstone to Joey Richardson, alongside the ever stable Vinnie Jones and the eminently unstable Daniel Ings.

The dialogue and plot twists kept the show going such that I could have binged watched it had my wife allowed!

Overall, I would give it a 9.5. So, 10. Guy Ritchie has given us a fine and entertaining work. Well written. Solid plot lines. Phenomenal script. And the acting and casting is spot on.

This came along when I really needed to escape into another world and it's been perfect.

Thank you Guy Ritchie.

Really don't get people trashing this movie. This movie has som many classic and hysterical scenes. And memorable lines.

So many great scenes. Taboo. Reese Witherspoon's mom's house visit. Church Christmas pageant. Lol! Just hysterical.

Jon Favreau. There are no insignificant roles. So good. What can you say about that guy? Chef. Star Wars shows. Numerous other films written, produced, directed. Just an underrated superstar of the movie industry.

And Vince Vaughn is his phenomenal and classic comedic self.

There is a reason it is in every Christmas. Super underrated Christmas movie. And it gets better every year.

Disappointing with the fan ratings. 6.8? Much better than that.

Really enjoyable. Loved it. But one, they make Sherlock a bit too inept rather than elevating Enola to the same level. A sign of less imaginative spy/detective writing. Just need some more tricks up their sleeve. The general plot, however, was great and the dialog was well written. The writers just need to show a bit more ingenuity in both Sherlock and Enola. Not that they were bad. They had their moments. Still not quite up to snuff for a Holmes story.

A little bit of a cheesy scene in the factory. Needed a bit more potency but otherwise a very good ending. And great to incorporate real history.

All that said, generally a very enjoyable and wonderful movie. We need more of these. Just need more as far as the genius of the Holmes' family characters. Hope they do another. These are great films that our culture needs in an era of uncertainty and despicable evil.

I thought episode 1 was trying for a bit of overall nostalgia or just an ode to Game of Thrones (though not particularly exceptional); more of an attempt to say, "Yes, we are going to be as focused on gratuitous violence and horrendous evil as Game of Thrones was." I'd give that episode a lesser rating (6). But still, a very solid beginning.

Episode 2, on the other hand (I give it a 9), which is getting lower ratings - no doubt due to the shallower, "we want gratuitous violence" crowd - was by far the more intriguing and fascinating episode - demonstrating the mixed moralities of every character. And it really brought out the oncoming force of Rhaenyra.

In Game of Thrones (aside from the horrendously failed final season - those two producers should be banned from producing any new TV shows; and the diminished seasons after they moved beyond the books) there were several redeeming characters that drew compassion - the Hound; Jon Snow; Tyrion; etc.

It will be interesting if this new series brings out similar redemptive characters or whether every character is ultimately too self-oriented. One of the problems for Martin, as epic a writer as he is, is that his view of the world lacks doesn't quite have the redeeming feature of the likes of Tolkien.

But, can't wait for the rest of the season. Solid start.

How this is an 8.6 and not in the mid to high 9s is beyond me.

This episode was full of incredible tension. It was a classic return to slippin' Jimmy although it was Gene.

"Filler?" That is over officious arrogant criticism. It carries the story forward and expands on the nature of what is going on with Saul. And it explores his future (post breaking bad) which is crucial to bringing the story of Saul to a conclusion in some way - however it plays out.

Do fans really want only to be brought to the beginning of Breaking Bad with no outcome for Saul? From the very first episode of BCS, we know that Jimmy/Saul/Gene is in the future and living out some strange life (whether in witness protection or just on the run). These snippets are - and this episode is - crucial to the continuing story of this great character.

It seems most of the harshest critics try to relate to show to the book. Rarely if ever does a show come close to matching the story of a book(s). The show has to be judged on its own. When we do that, while one might find some areas for improvement, the show itself is very entertaining and actually surpassed expectations.

There are two criticisms I have of the show. First, Henry Cavill. I really do you like him, but I find that his interpretation of Geralt is too soft. Too emotional. It feels like he's trying to be bring appeal to a 13 year old teenage girl. The Witcher is a tough character and while there are times where you can see his ferocity come through, he just needs to be a little rougher around the edges. Even when he is "making nice."

Second, and this is a problem with numerous shows, and Cavill is the biggest culprit here, the speech is way too soft; particularly when the characters are outside riding on horses or walking through the woods. This is a constant problem; a failure of realism in much programming today. I understand it's easier and more appealing to have a low, soft, near whisper or "close proximity" voice. But it just does not work when two people are outside on horseback. You can't talk at a whisper to someone 6-8 feet away on a horse in the outdoors. It's just not realistic.

Otherwise I really enjoy the story and the settings are well done as are the effects. So, to the acting in general is excellent.

I think the other main characters, Yennifer and Ciri, are fantastic actors. Hope to see more of them on shows and movies in the future.

Love the show. The critics can just go back into their cubby hole of arrogance and be happy.

There have been a lot of great shows this century - Breaking Bad; True Detective (season 1); etc.

But this show just brings me back to joy and a breath of fresh air. It actually brings some healing to my bones from depression as a mini escape.

No show is worthy of 10 stars, admittedly, but I gave it that from a relative sliding scale grade.

It has a fascinating combination of tension, selfishness, but then surprising moments of true goodness in each character. And it has just enough edginess to prevent it from being too "goody two shoes."

There is a beauty and positivity here that really is missing from any show I've seen the past 15-20 years (it has a comforting element that Psych and Monk used to bring - but has more uniqueness from those boilerplate shows).

And it doesn't theologize, patronize, politicize. Nor is it too preachy.

It's just beauty and goodness. Mixed with a bit of tension and bad actors - but not so bad it turns dark.

Thankful for this bright light in a dark and despairing world.

I really wanted to like this film. Couldn't wait to see it. Love the courageous figures from that era of the civil rights movement; and am a fan of all the real life characters. Loved Malcolm X's bio. And huge fan of Regina King.

But this was poorly written. Boring. Slow. Dialogue was lame.

Didn't really like any of the character portrayals. Malcolm lacked a lot of confidence and more of a nerd than what I have seen in footage or read from him.

Eli Goree was WAY over muscled playing Clay/Ali. His voice was a good match but his dialogue was far less colorful and poetic than the real deal.

Jim Brown was far too light hearted - kiddish. The real Jim Brown was a far more manly and tough minded. Especially for a man who had been through so much and was a veteran of 8 years in the NFL at that point.

But the most significant issue was the script. Could have been far better if it actually had a script writer with quality dialogue and if they tried to at least approximate the personalities

I am a massive fan of Christopher Nolan. But this was so frustrating. .

The main character had little life. The sci fi elements were fairly lame and didn't really make a lot of sense. Very little explanation or detail. Poorly executed. Acting was average.

Really surprised at how poor a film this was.

It felt like it was an idea he had and then slapped it together in a few hours.

The show was brilliant for the first several seasons with multiple exceptional characters, the breadth of prime characters is unmatched in TV history.

Yet the show began to stumble after it moved beyond the books. It didn't fall immediately, it was one of those stumbles where you trip yet keep taking big steps in hopes of recovery.

Within that stumble was the attrition of episodes - down to 6 in the final season. Each season should have had at minimum 10 episodes. The show runners were clearly punting.

But, then, season 8. The greatest fail final season in TV history. D&D should be given a writing/TV ban for 8 years for that. It was appallingly rushed, miscalculated, and incoherent with the build up over the first 5-6 seasons.

I am not in the camp of those who think the show can't be re-watched. I simply use my imagination to create a different final season and a different ending. It's as simple as that.

One has to call into question the acumen of anyone who rated this show below a nine.

The comedy of the show is simultaneously sophomoric and the most intelligent in television history. Such is the brilliance of Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David.

Along with the writing comes the ideal friendship and interplay of the four prime characters.

To be sure, it is a show for its age, capturing the culture of 30 somethings in the 90's and yet it endures because each character - Jerry, Elaine, George, Kramer and the ancillary Puddy's and Newman's - are both stereotypes and yet exceptional, the comedic timing remains peak, and the format of multiple motifs all converging at the climax of each episode is ingenious.

Finally, the end of Seinfeld has left a serious void in the world of television entertainment (certainly a major void in network TV - though the Big Bang Theory picked up a portion of this) and that is a sense of joy and lightheartedness.

In a post 9/11 world in which negativity, xenophobia, and social media's exacerbation of our basest impulses seem to rule and the political climate is horrific, Seinfeld brings an ease to tension and the perfect escape from those awful realties.

The one single flaw is the final episode could have been better. Otherwise it's perfection. The only comedy to rival it would be I Love Lucy.

Just a masterpiece of filmmaking.

As far as pacing, dialogue, camera work, cinematography, and acting, I thought this movie was absolute perfection. Every scene and the entire film carries intrigue or excitement. Never a dull moment, or even a dull second, throughout. Just astounding; as someone else mentioned, watch this with a minimum of knowledge about the plot.

The overall narrative is also exceptional. For me, personally, there were a couple of elements of the plot in which I would have preferred to be different, which is why I give it 9 stars instead of 10. However, that's not a significant negative, just my own preference and it still is an astounding film.

After the first 5-6 episodes of season 1, I thought, 'eh, it's okay.' Gave it a 6-7 (6.5).

But, I finished season 1 and decided to just keep watching. Now, just into season 3, and I give it a 9.

The initial criticism I had was twofold: 1) Characters were over the top and over reactionary. 2) Acting (especially from Steven Strait).

However, the overall narrative setting, intrigue, and plot line is exceptional. How it pans out in the end will determine it's final rating.

There is an excellent array of storylines. I really like some of the characters. And it's one of the better space and imaginary SciFi shows. Arguably the best out there right now.

I was hoping that Vice would have the humor and historical integrity (at least to a degree) that The Big Short possessed. Unfortunately it fell short.

Positively, the acting, particularly Christian Bale's portrayal of Dick and Amy Adams of Lynne, was superb.

However, Vice is trite and overblown. As The Atlantic review captures it: "The (invented) dialogue between the principal characters less resembles how conservatives actually talk than how liberals sometimes like to imagine they do, full of malice and disdain."

To be sure, Cheney is an enigmatic character who took strange turns and also did damage internationally. But there were many alleged conversations that made things look bad which have no genuine historic confirmation.

And particularly McKay's take on the 80's and the Reagan era, especially the rationale he gives regarding taxation, is nonsense. It fits Trump but not Reagan. It's almost as if he were labeling Reagan another Trump. Reagan has his issues but he's far removed both personally and ideologically from Trump. McKay's lack of nuanced understanding of the conservative movement in the past makes this film fall big(time) short and crash.

Finally, in a world in which Donald Trump constantly cries "Fake News," creating an epistemological quagmire in the public and political arena, this film with its shallow and blatantly false takes at times only plays into the hands of Trumpian Propaganda and does little more than add another brick in the wall of the great divide between liberal and conservative in America.

Perhaps McKay would have done better had he stuck either to humor alone or to enlist a quality historian as he did in The Big Short. He did not.

So unfortunate.

In a world full of little joy, I found Mary Poppins Returns to be a wonderful film and full of great joy.

Emily Blunt and Miranda were both exceptional. Blunt does not have the voice of Julie Andrews, but she held her own and she's a better actress (though, of course, acting has evolved and improved over time so that can be a bit of an unfair comparison). Her character was exceptional but also had a feel of forlornness at times that was effective in the moment.

I found the music and songs very enriching, with depth. Miranda had his exceptional moments and most importantly the songs were not trite moral sentimentality, but actually had a depth of meaning for human life. Much appreciated.

All the characters were well acted, imo. Just nothing disappointing about this.

A great movie. We loved it.

I should begin with the fact that I love period pieces and historical dramas (or dramedies) - even if these take liberties. I also am a big fan of dark comedy (e.g., Fargo).

But, this film was pure pretentiousness on the part of Lanthimos as it had little comedy and, more importantly, zero redeeming characters. Even a broken, flawed character who had some redeeming value would have made the film more tolerable. One kept looking for someone to root for - even if that ended in a tragic outcome it would have been better. I found none.

The five stars go for the three main actresses - Colman, Weisz, and Stone. They were exceptional. Stone in particular.

The film was grounded in the historical relationship between Queen Anne (who reigned from 1701 until her death in 1714) and her close but eventually strained friendship with Lady Sarah (Weisz). As far as the bare bones of the story went, it was accurate. However, there was no effort to find any positive quality for these characters. They were all purely selfish and evil.

I did find first 45 minutes or so were quite interesting and enjoyable wondering where things were going. But, unfortunately, the film just does not bring a single positive value.

Even in the Trump administration one can find a few altruistic people. Lanthimos wrote none into the story. Too bad. It was neither fun, humorous (except in one or two scenes), nor redeemable. A waste of time and money from my perspective.

This is basically every romantic comedy you've ever seen, except it's all asian cast. Given the reviews I thought it would be something really interesting and fresh.

It was anything but fresh. In fact, nearly all the characters are copies of other characters in other films. We watched it because it had good ratings but, man, what a waste of time.

I really enjoy the show but there are too many problematic elements to give it a really high rating.

There are generally five or six key features of a great film/TV narrative: 1) a fresh and interesting overall narrative arc or storyline; 2) quality sub-narratives; 3) exceptionally written dialogue; 4) interesting character development; 5) quality acting; 6) realistic visuals.

The expanse checks the box quite well on 1. It is decent with respect to 4. 5 is a mixed bag. So, also, 2. 3 is up and down as well. 6 is pretty decent.

The premise and storyline are fascinating. But, the fundamental problem with this show is that there are too many situations in which characters simply do not make obvious choices to solve a problem or communicate simple facts that would otherwise alleviate trouble. The central character played by Steven Strait is too weak and emotional. There are so many dumb decisions (especially with Thomas Jane's character, and particularly in season 2).

The female leads are well acted and are also quite compelling. The male leads not so much. Some of the sub characters are decent.

At times the dialogue is solid. At other times it just falls short.

Currently, it's a 6.5 of 10. At best a 7. At worst a 6. As to the ultimate rating of the program, a great deal of that will depend on the development of the narrative and the final outcome.

Basically, a remake of a more well done heist film in LA that had two A-list actors. This one had middling acting and poorer writing. There is a surprise or two, but it's nothing shocking nor even hopeful or satisfying. Just a predictable character movie with little to offer.

I'm finding Hollywood very disappointing of late. The level of creativity in movies has just tailed off. It's as if TV and Film have reversed themselves.

Movies these days are about as imaginative as Network TV.

I think 6.0 is about right. Perhaps a 6.5. It is a cheesy movie, to say the least. But, that was But, CHIPS the show was fairly cheesy. By far not a great film. But, not altogether bad, either. There are some films that are just bad and unwatchable. But, this is the kind of movie that if you know it's going to be cheesy and that there will be some cringe moments, it's watchable.

It will probably disappoint original viewers of the show. But, had they boiler-plated the original, it would not have gone anywhere. It didn't have enough humor or drama to sustain itself as a film. And, I was a fan.

But, CHIPS the movie was fairly humorous - more so than the show. A number of funny lines kept one involved and it was the several side-story humor that kept the show going.

This film struck me as a bit of an attempt to be Lethal Weapon type - but didn't have the potent acting or writing.

The acting was below par and at times was atrocious. Not that the actors were bad but that sometimes they clearly just mailed it in. The scene where Ponch (played by Michael Pena) was confronted by his boss looked like they were reading lines off of cue cards. Literally. It had the feel of being slapped together the last minute, neither actor appeared to know his lines, and it almost seemed they were being fed lines, saying them for the first time, ever.

The film was disjointed in its plot line and various story lines.

One of the great things about Chips the show was that it was all about Los Angeles, and sunny, southern California. It was in that 70's Emergency family that also flowed out of Dragnet. And, the movie did not disappoint, showing many wide angle views of various parts of LA.

Would never have seen this film in the theater. But, generally, it was a watchable film and it is worth a rental on a slow night with someone who can get the humor and find enjoyment in the cheesy and lightness of the film.

FX is crushing it with their TV shows in the past few years (Fargo is as good as it gets). And Feud is doing a fantastic job keeping it going.

Jessica Lang is very good in her role as Joan Crawford. But, I have to say, I think Susan Sarandon is absolutely killing it as Bette Davis. I feel like I'm watching Bette Davis. I'd like to see Sarandon nominated for an Emmy and a Golden Globe as well.

It not only is a great program in dealing with the Davis and Crawford feud, but it's a wonderful homage to old Hollywood.

Well worth watching.

A movie (think Little Miss Sunshine) or show (think Shameless) that is fully of broken characters can be redeeming and beautiful.

Granted, this review is two episodes in (but, then, all the reviews up so far - 13 at this stage - are premature), nevertheless, Big Little Lies is anything but redeeming; it does contain a beauty that barely traverses skin depth. It is little more than a daytime soap amped up on steroids with a number of quality 'name' actresses. They are enough to lead to tuning in and watching. Beyond that, both the main characters and the bit parts are angry, vacuous in character, shallow and generally lacking in genuine compassion and love.

You're probably just as suited to tuning into Days of Our Lives. Even General Hospital may have more redeeming women than this show. Or, should I say, more real, actual human beings.

Aside from that, the show is full of negative, hate oriented (be it the subtle hidden kind or open, obvious) dialog.