drjgardner

If you're interested in an action series, this one is it. Better than almost any action series you've seen on TV, and up there with Miami Vice. It's not merely the action, it's everything. The music and the photography are wonderful. The editing is really great - something you only expect to see in first class films. What pulls it together is great acting and really clever scripts that have multiple interacting plots.

OK. It's violent. Not me rely violent, but really violent. So stay away if your squeamish. And yes, there's a lot of nudity, including some frontal nudity. So if that offends you, this isn't the series you ant to watch.

Really! What an insult! To the audience and to the franchise! Let's see. 1. The music is terrible, It overpowers everyone. Well, maybe that's not the worst thing since everything is terrible. 2. The acting is poor, from almost everyone, except the synthetics. 3. The use of cocky is questionable. I couldn't understand a thing. 4. The physics and the mechanics are not correctly done. 5. The story line is muddled, as are the creatures. 6. The attempts to copy from the original are poorly done. This isn't satire. Nor is it a homage. 7. The deaths of the creatures get pretty boring. In fact, just about everything with the creatures gets boring. Did no one tell them that less is more. Look at the originals to see the results. FWIW - I rarely give a "1" as a rating.

There are so many problems with the show it's hard to know where to begin. Problem #1 - it's not funny. Yes, there are some giggles and a few laughs, but most of the time it's simply not funny. Problem #2 - bad acting. Maybe it's not so much the bad ac ting as it is the lack of comedy, but either way, not very entertaining to watch. Problem #3 - preposterous. Yes, it's not a likely story and it seems so staged it's not captivating. Problem #4 - Who really cares? The "star" of this show is a "nerdowell" who lies, cheats, and otherwise represents a kind of hero it's hard to cheer for. I didn't find a single saving grace in the first show, so won't watch any more.

This documentary could have been wonderful. It has some precious footage that has probably never been seen before. It's truly eye-opening. If you're a WW1 expert you will really appreciate it.

Suppose you're not a WW1 expert. Suppose you're just an ordinary person looking for some information about WW1. Look elsewhere!

In a War as important as WW1 you need lots of maps. I think it's nearly an hour before the first map appears. By then you're lost.

WW1 also has a lot of back story that includes people and places and events. Very little of it is covered adequately.

Once the war starts, there are lots of people. This documentary talks to you as if you know who these people are. You don't.

As a movie, it's ok and certainly for the 1950s. And of course you have Errol Flynn who rarely disappoints, even as late as 1950. In addition to Flynn and some really good photography, there isn't too much else to recommend it. But what I really object to is the myth the film perpetuates that the South were fighting some type of noble cause. There's a scene where Flynn remembers how happy he was on his big plantation looking out at the river and the cotton fields. He neglected to talk about the slaves. Now I don't doubt that a southerner said this, but what I object to is that no one in the film offers a counter view. The South was fighting to keep slavery. That's what the war was all about. Surely one of the captured Union soldiers could have offered this counterpoint.

Hard to imagine how they came up with this script. Let's have an action combat film juxtaposed against a elderly buffoon wandering around a grocery store. Let's have a bunch of soldiers watching TV and intercut with life and death 10,000 miles away. The idea is silly and can only rarely be achieved well (e.g., when they play "Have yourself a Merry Christmas" while WW2 carnage is going on).

The juxtapositioning fails miserably. Russel Crow fails miserably. The action sequences are great. What should be juxtaposed is the way that US troops are so reliant upon their technology while the "enemy" is just grunting by. The US is using satellites and telescopes and the enemy are using dogs. These types of scenes would have been great.

Watch the action. Skip anything with Crowe or the soldiers watching TV, and you have a pretty good film.

If only they had some better historians for this mini-series it would have been terrific. I'm giving it 8 out of 10 for how much value it has, but I subtracted 2 points because of all the errors and omissions. The main error, and it's a BIG one, is not mentioning Horace Greeley who was Heart's model for his goals. In the post Civil War era, newspaper publishers began to exert direct political influence. Isaac Hill (NH Patriot) was U. S. Senator and Governor of New Hampshire. James Bennett (NY Herald) was a strong supporter of Presidents Harrison (1840), Taylor (1848) and Pierce (1852). Horace Greeley (NY Tribune) was a Representative from New York and ran for President on the Liberal Republican Party ticket in 1872. These are the models Hearts used, not Pulitzer , on whom Part 1 spends a lot of time.

The other BIG error is the lack of psychological information. Rather than hearing from a historian what he thinks motivated Hearst, perhaps a Psychologist would provide better insight.

There are minor errors. News boys started in the 30s, not the 80s. Motion pictures of NY prior to 1800 were virtually non-existent. Etc.

OK. You get my point. It's not perfect. But putting aside these issues, it's wonderful, has great photos, and gives lots of information.

This film is seriously bad. If you're going to see if for Nick Cage, forget it. He isn't there. There is someone who I suppose people will say is him, dressed as a woman or maybe he's a man, and unrecognizable as Cage or anyone else for that matter,. And this figure, the evil one shows up for probably less than 5 minutes.

OK. Forget about Nick Cage and let's just consider the film itself. It's a whodunnit with occasional bits of horror. The horror bits are pretty poor and the whodunit isn't much of a stretch.

Most of the acting in the film is poor, as if this were a B or less type film. The direction is really poor. A whodunit or a horror film should have some suspense building up. This one doesn't. Feel free to go to the restroom whenever you want.

History with David Rubenstein is one of the finest TV shows ever produced. It's so good I save the episodes and periodically watch them over and over. But his latest project is a great disappointment. Why?

Rubenstein doesn't seem to stick to a topic. The episode on the Golden Gate Bridge turns out to be mostly about cars, trains, and sustainable transportation. The episode about Fenway Park is more a collection of plays from the past than it is about ball parks, much less Fenway.

Then there are the omissions (something that is hard to believe given Rubenstein's background). The episode about the Golden Gate that turns partially into an episode about the car doesn't seem to know that the interstate highway system was developed by Eisenhower because he was so impressed with the German system. And no, the US wasn't the first to develop this system - Hitler did it.

There's more, but I think you have the idea. This is a deeply flawed series, which is so sad because the idea itself is wonderful.

No, this isn't the worst film ever made nor it is the worst Western ever made. It is bad, really bad. I walked out after an hour. BTW - it takes nearly an hour before KC shows up, so I kept waiting in the hopes that when he arrived the film would pick up. It didn't.

What's so bad. First, the music. It is constant and blaring and not particularly relevant to the action of screen. Then there's the photography. It is average at best, but occasionally it gets really bad, focusing in on strange things. This is not John Ford.

Maybe the story is even worse than the music and photography. I should say "stories" because there doesn't seem to be a story per se. The film wanders around in various places at various times. In the hour I struggled to stay and watch, it wasn't clear what these disparate elements meant. Maybe they come together, but who cares.

Maybe even worse than the story is the direction. Not sure what the director wasn't trying to establish, but there are simply too many repetitive shots that go on too long.

Don't get me started on the acting. Only one person did a good job. The rest were so obviously actors acting as if they were in a western film. Even the Indians did a poor job.

Avoid this film. Avoid the next chapter if they are dumb enough to film it.

There is wonderful acting from Christopher Plummer. And Janet McTeer who plays his wife. Lily James is quite good, offering a mystique that follows her character. The scene stealer is Eddie Marsan who plays Himmler.

The film is a little slow, but that's probably they way it should be. Then when it's right, it speeds up, so we can forgive the slow build up.

My only real problem an d the reason I give it only a 6 is that they failed to provide some after-film notes. The ultimate time and manner of Wilhelm's death is very pertinent to the story, especially what happened after he died. Not printing the information is a real loss.

It's not clear whether or not the film is based on some facts but some of the details are not correct.

I get it. Politics is really scary right now. Not merely in the US but in Africa, Europe, Asia, and just about everywhere. So wouldn't it be good to do a satire that would enlighten us all and maybe lighten up the mood. It doesn't have to be left or right, just pertinent, at times, funny, and at time a little too real.

Every so often, this series achieves just that. But it's only every so often and that's not very often at all. There is an occasional good performance, but mostly the acting is just plain poor. That's true for Winslet too. Very disappointing all around.

There isn't much else to save this poor show. Music and photography and poor and the script itself can't be saved. What a loss!

When I say this is the worst editing in film history I should say that I've seen nearly 10,000 films, including a few hundred with subtitles. That being said, it's possible that my comment is a function of the fact that the film is in a foreign language and the english subtitles were obviously not written by an english speaker. Put all that aside.

Just because it's the worst editing ever doesn't mean it's the worst film ever. It's not. It's not a good film, but there are many many worse than this one. There is a story and some of the acting is good, though some of it is sheer nonsense.

My best recommendation is give it a miss.

I want to give this series a 10. It has the most wonderful acting by everyone in the cast and a location that makes you believe you are time-traveling. The music is similarly first rate, and the departure from history is not so much and much less than most other westerns.

So why an 8? Two problems. The first is the chock full of content nature of the series, with so many characters and so many subplots, detracts from the series, in my opinion. Fewer subplots would have been preferable, and a little better exposition especially about motivation. For this series, less would have been more. Instead more is less. Too bad.

My other complaint is about the ending. What#$?## Seriously, what a terrible way to end the series.

The new film is as brilliant and wonderful as the old film was, using a very entertaining and imaginative way to represent emotions and their impact on people, more specifically, a young girl. The metaphors brought to life (e.g., stream of consciousness is stream, train of consciousness is a choo choo) and representations are very creative and very funny. The film gets a 10 for the wonderful images, sounds, and ideas. But it gets a 0 for accuracy. People's behavior is not controlled by emotions - emotions are only one factor that the person deals with. In addition, there is reality, internal processes, and social pressures. Each action takes place in the context of these competing forces. The true "control panel" is not in a room with the emotions, but rather the emotions show up on a panel in a different, higher level panel, where all these other impulses and perceptions compete for action that will reward the person and further their goals.

This film is beyond belief for how they attempt to describe what happens in a person's brain. Everything about it is wonderful, from the names, appearances, actions, etc. The only problem , and it's a big one which is why I gave them a 5 instead of a 10, is that this isn't the way that the brain works nor does it accurately describe how people function. Emotions are not in charge! Emotions may sometimes seem to be in control, but the behavior of a person is controlled by a higher level function that deals with emotions, reality, internal physical states, and what Freud called the super-ego or the moral constraints that accumulate over time. As well, emotions are not as single minded as the film implies, rather, they can be blended. Anyway, I could go on. The bottom line is that it's wonderful, enjoy it, but don't think it's an alternate to Psych 101.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in this film that is better than mediocre. But first a confession. I walked out after a half hour. Maybe it got better. It couldn't get worse. Cardboard villains, terrible music, poor photography, and heroes that are out of shape and having too much fun with each other. Nothing is better than mediocre. And I was a big fan of the original film.

It's hard to do #2 after a big hit and even harder to do #43, etc. Few films are able to keep up the momentum. This one should have stopped at #1.

It's no coincidence that the film is produced by the two lead actors. I can't imagine anyone else putting up their cash.

There is a benefit to starting a film or a series slowly. It sets a mood. It lets you get comfortable and lull you for the next thing to come. But too slow for too long makes it difficult to keep the dial tuned (that's how old I am, I still recall getting up and switching a dial) .

It's a shame this series is so slow and so repetitive. Yes, we get it. He's here and then he's there and how can that be? How many times does this have to be repeated before we get the point!!!

There are many good points. The acting is uniformly good and the basic idea is wonderful. But the script itself and the director simply keep extending it.

Hint to the producer - get a good director to edit it down, take out at least 30 minutes, and you'd have a great series.

Was this a satire? It must have been. The two main actors, Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth, did such a terrible job acting I can only assume we were meant to laugh. Such bad acting is not unknown, but in a George Miller picture it is unusual. There's a difference between "over the top" and "simply bad." Sometimes there's a thin line. Johnny Depp crosses it a lot lately, but good actors usually stay on one side. Taylor and Hemsworth cross the line completely.

All isn't terrible. Young Alyla Browne is a complete scene stealer and a film stealer. I haven't seen anyone like this since Natalie Portman in The Professional. Browne is captivating in everything she does, making Joy's acting embarrassing, to say the least.

There are more problems with the film. Miller doesn't seem to know how to end it, though I did like the final ending. And the continuity seems to get blurred at times, and the timeline itself is violated often.

Bottom line - a big disappointment. Mad Max deserved better.

I'm not completely sure this is the worst series ever, but it's probably the worst series my wife ever forced me to watch. Maybe it's a horror story, or maybe supernatural, or maybe folkloriost or maybe ever a murder mystery. Who knows. Most of the shots are in the dark and in the cold, with winter weather. If that's not depressing enough, there isn't a single character to cheer for. A lot of people die, but you don't get the chance to care one way or the other. Then there's the core of the film which is about finding out something, that's maybe a murder or maybe not, that's tied to some superstitions and symbols, but maybe not. A total waste of time. Even my wife was giving up as it went on (and on, and on...)

This film has everything. A good coming of age plot, wonderful acting, great photography, and good music. So why doesn't it get a 10? A couple of reasons. (1) the flashbacks are not timed well, so at times they are distracting and sometimes even annoying. (2) For a film about an artist the photography, though wonderful, could have been a little more CU for the natural elements. The camera should love the elements as much as she does. (3) for the length of the early years in her life, the later years get short changed.

These are all minor points. All things considered it's a wonderful film. See it.

This may be the WOAT (Worst of all time). I can't recall a worse roast. First of all, it isn't funny. Not only is it not funny, the excessive cursing and screaming by Kevin Hart is simply gross. I'm not sure what happened to Kevin Hart - he used to be funny. The opening bit by Jeff Ross was humorless, and talk with less funny than he usually is. The "roasts" by the FB players may show the effects of years of being hit - not funny at all. The only one who was really funny was Nikki Glaser. Yes, she was a bit raunchy, but she was funny and that's what mattered - especially in such a humorless show. Avoid this one. It's not merely a waste of time, it's tasteless.

Jeff Daniels and the other actors do a great job. There are so many good performances that it's hard to single out any one of them, but Tom Perlphrey and Bill Camp do stand out. But, the series suffers from a number of problems that detract from the quality of the series.

First and biggest is the several stories being told, some of which bear only tangentially to the plot. I think that's a problem of trying to be loyal to the book which cannot be done in a film.

The next biggest problem is that there is no one to cheer for. None of the major characters are sympathetic though there are a few at the periphery who are. Without someone to cheer for, the series gets depressing.

Upsetting and beyond belief is the final act in which a contrivance barely even mentioned earlier suddenly plays the pivotal part in the drama. Rather than drama, the scene turns into late-night sketch comedy. Unbelievable.

Don't waste your time on this series. It's not so good in the first place, and the final act is so terrible it cancels out any good that has preceded it.

You would think that a film about a stunt guy would show us, at the end, who the stunt people were and what they did. Throughout the film there are references to the "unsung heroes" and the fact that the stunt people get no credit. What a great idea it would be to end the film with a tribute to them, the films they made, the stunts they created, the injuries they had, etc. They could have rolled it during the credits and took nothing away from the running time. I'm really disappointed that the film producers did to them just what they denounced in their own film. Shame!

The only positive aspect was having Lee Majors appear at the end.

An issue as contemporary and important deserves a better, much better, treatment. The only good aspect is the sound editing. Photography, for a film about photojournalists, is disappointing to say the least. At its best it's merely ordinary. The acting is also disappointing with only two good performances from the major players. In fact, the only outstanding performance is from an uncredited actor. But the real core of the problem is the script and direction, which apparently is the domain of one single person, Alex Garland.

The film is so predictable you could write it yourself. There isn't a surprise anywhere along the way, except at the end, where there is a fatal mistake which I'll talk about later.

(Having just spent a lot of time writing my new book "The Civil War: How it Started and How to End it" I'm pretty much tuned into secessionist movements from the 1600 to 2024, so I feel comfortable with my next remarks)

The writer's conception of how a secession would happen in the U. S. is completely ridiculous. It reads more like it was written by a foreigner (which Garland is). The idea of Texas joining forces with California is so aberrant I needn't discuss it any further.

DON'T READ FURTHER - SPOILER ALERT.

If everything else doesn't indicate what a poor film this is, at the end, the senior photographer (Kirsten Dunst) gets killed saving the life of her junior partner (Cailee Spaeny). Junior then goes on to take the "money shot" BUT she should have picked up Dunst's camera and taken the shot with that camera, indicating the passing of the torch. That's what a better writer would have done.