Reviews

I think this film should have been called "Josephine" instead, because that is the subject that is the most explanatory. The history itself beyond that takes huge leaps and ducks simple explanations of who is who and what motivation might drive them, including that of Napoleon himself. The commanding excellence of his is almost nonexistent in the storytelling, and I really believe that this is what the audience would've wanted. Not the abundant, sad scenes of the relationship between N and J. Personally I would've written the script with emphasis on the wars, why they were waged and how, what the soldiers might have experienced, what the logistics behind the army looked like. And definitely explained better what was going on.

After the horrendous "Kenobi" spin-off, many of us Star Wars-fans were hoping that Ahsoka could reignite the trust for the franchise. But no, this is another missed opportunity. It makes me draw the conclusion that Disney is in a terrible rut regarding staff. There seems to be no good directors or worse still, producers, not even Kathleen Kennedy, who has lost her spark. The script is amazingly flat and slow, with virtually no "real" humour or deeper content for the actors to work on, and a story that moves like a sloth on a monday morning. Cinematography, special effects and editing lacks energy and skill. The long dogfight in episode 3 for example goes on forever, but there is no sense of danger, speed or even motion. I literally went for a cuppa during it. I bet George Lucas would cringe to a puddle in his sofa if he was watching this. Lucas who is the master of speed and energy. The casting is terrible - NONE of the actors are fit for this story, except Evan Whitten who does a great job with the small part he has. The two sith on the other hand, as an example, consists of a non-menacing old man, who I got the feeling would rather be in his garage tinkering with an old motorcycle, and a girl that portrays evil by tilting her head down and widening her eyes constantly. The fighting choreography is well below average. They put some Kendo postures in it, but it isn't used in the correct way by the actors and choreographer, and the fights just seems so feeble and dull. Where is the speed? Where is the imagination? Where is the grit? Where is the sense of imminent catastrophe? Production design is flaky, sometimes good in certain exterior shots, but bad in many interior shots, like the cockpit of Ahsokas ship. I'm sorry, but it looks like a prop some 10-year olds put up in their basement. The costume design by Trpcic is very good. The titel music also, and the soundtrack is passable. To summarize: what in the world are Disney doing with the Star Wars legacy, that they acquired for a hefty sum I would imagine. In my opinion, they are completely slaughtering it. And I can for the life of me not understand how so many incompetent people can work at Disney.

I've read the books. This TV adaption misses the core of the whole idea. The idea is, that Seldons plan would play out for centuries ahead, meaning that there must be a certain tempo to maintain. I've reached the 8th episode now, and hardly anything has actually happened. We are more or less in "Now" time. To be clear, the story only vaguely follows the books. Instead, the creators has come up with new stories, new characters, endless boring love scenes alternating with endless boring emotional scenes, sprinkled with confusing back stories. And I can't really go on watching, because this approach by the creators is really idiotic. Why on earth didn't they just follow the original story? It should've been so easy, for there is a vast source of characters, plots, drama to make a really good TV series. Such a massive shame.

Great disappointment. Worse than the film episodes 1-3 The whole series is remarkably empty of a lot of things. It doesn't really happen that much. The script is very shallow - people talk in a very unnatural, stiff way. Bad, stiff acting in many scenes. The story is puzzling at times. Almost no character development - what drives the characters? What do they want too achieve? How do they feel? The script is also totally devoid of humour and way, way too serious. The direction and photography lacks skill and imagination, almost B-class. Too few aliens. The ending should be a happy occasion, but even there the filmmakers succeeds in making it slow, mushy and boring. In the end I just felt I didn't care of any of the characters, and that I didn't want to watch a Star Wars movie ever again.

See the far superior 1978 version instead. Outclasses this version in every way - screenplay, acting, photography. Fun fact from the 1970s: it is possible to shoot a film on location, and not to a green screen with added CGI background.

The bland, uninspired approach from all involved is a textbook example of how NOT to make a movie. It seems that the budget was spent on e few prominent actors, and script, direction and photography was handed to people from B-squad.

The first two times I saw this film, many years ago, I thoroughly disliked it. It was the worst Bond-film in my opinion. But seeing it again for the third time, I was more than surprised to find it extremely good. Strange! This time I enjoyed the fast editing - it was like a piece of video art. I found it touching watching the friendship between Bond and Mathis. I really liked the music score. Loved the film locations, loved them! And the art direction - the desert hotel setting in the end of the film is just great - who doesn't want to stay there for a while, watching the empty desert just outside your hotel balcony. Great idea. And I really liked the dialogue - it seemed more natural and free-flowing than other Bond-films. Somehow the film revealed itself to be a very good piece of film art overall. A strange Bond-film, but one of the best.

I never thought I would have to rate a Star Wars movie this low, but here we are. After seeing it for the second time, my conclusion is that this film is actually very bad. What a sad ending to "my" Star Wars career. My first movie memory was seeing episode 4 in an amphitheater in Greece beneath the starlit sky, around 1978. I just wish that the final film could have ended with grace. But no.

The opening sequences are confusing, and that confusion lingers on for the rest of the film. It was really hard to comprehend, even for a die hard fan like myself, and still after watching it two times, I still don't understand most of it! The story kind of rushes on without taking the time to explain, never going deep, never engaging for the viewer, pushing on to the next scene with fast edits, never taking a breath. The first time the "gang" was reunited after various missions (again, never explained properly), I thought I was watching an episode of "Friends". It was so shallow, and instead of laying the ground of the story, it was just flimsy, almost hysterical nonsense chatter.

Another flaw in the story is the emphasis on the connection between Rey and Ben. It gets tedious. It doesn't explain much. It would have been more interesting if Rey was tormented not by Ben, but by the dark connection she has to that other person. I never really liked the Kylo Ren character - it's too much of an overgrown teenager in Adam Driver. He never feels dangerous, just annoying.

The "cramped" scenes is also not good. Why gather every singel character in every scen all the time? It feels like that throughout the film. It's like a bad frat party film from the 80s.

The locations are also bad. To much studio feeling, even when they actually are out in the desert or in the forest. I want to feel and see the dust, the grit, the moist air, the little indigenous creatures scattering along. The ocean world does seem wet, but still unreal for some reason.

Besides the badly written story, I don't like the excessive "mumbo jumbo" scenes. Rey and Ben using the force to prevent a starship from taking off? Come on. It's like watching a bad sorcery film for kids.

I don't think I ever want to see this film again. And that makes me a bit sad.

After the two first episodes, I must say I'm impressed. Super likable team with really great ideas and taste, and just as important: the clients are super likable too. It's fun and entertaining all the time, and that's a accomplishent in itself, but it's also educational in a very good way. We learn small things all the time from the culture that they are visiting, without overdoing it. The production is stellar . I really like the tempo of the narrative, and the camerawork and editing is top notch. Very far from the all too common traditional American-style documentaries with fast clips, swooping camera shots, tired sound effects and all that nonsense. This show is very pleasant to watch. It feels sincere and fun. Recommended.

When I saw this film at the movies, I was a bit "meh". But seeing it again on a smaller screen, I really enjoyed it. The production quality is very high, and the actors are actually very good. For some reason I didn't notice that the first time. Emilia Clarke, for example, does a great job, despite looking a bit too picture perfect in the opening scenes. Woody Harrelson was much better than I rembembered. Good chemistry between Chewie and Han. And I liked the story! It was well written, with some clever lines, and it tied the Solo background story together in a good way. So, from "meh" to one of my favourites. That does'nt happen very often.

I'm a huge Woody Allen fan, and this is his best film in my opinion. The script is superb and very funny. Wonderful dialogue with constant comic lines. The direction is perfect and the actors are super. I love the settings and set design, Allen's apartment especially. I saw this only a month ago, but now I feel like seeing it again. It is that good.

I liked this film when I was young, lightyears ago, but seeing it again now I realised that it hasn't aged well. The jokes are mostly vulgar, and Ace Ventura himself is not a very pleasant, or even funny, guy at all. He gives me a slight headache. Not fun to watch, but I still do like the animals, especially the shark who does its best to end this pile of crap of a movie...

I've seen this film a couple of times now, and I have to say that it is so very well done in many ways. The script and story is great - well paced. The dialogue flows without effort and is interesting and fun. The acting is superb - that goes for everyone! Great casting. You don't see that very often. Just look at Trevor! The little charm-goblin...The production and photography is superb. This is a film that is a joy to watch.

Netflix, is it "anything goes" right now? Because this is as low as you can get. Uninspired writing, acting, photography, cgi, and the list just goes on. Bloody bananas! Producers: just see some good sci-fi for some inspiration first. Jesus! It is so strange that this was even made, and the only reason I sat through the first episode was because my wife wanted us to see it. It just made me annoyed and put me in a bad mood. Thanks Netflix for making me totally waste an hour of my life, and possibly my marriage...

It is clear that Allen wrote the main character with himself in mind. The neurotic babbling in the dialogue shows this way to often. It just doesn't suit Colin Firth at all, and it brings down the whole experience with him in the leading role. Owen Wilson might have pulled it off, like he did in Midnight in Paris, but Firth? No.

Other than that, it s a film that certainly isn't lacking beautiful scenery and clothes, but it does lack attention to detail and more than often feels rushed in its production and editing. Some scenes ends too abrutply. On many occasions the emotions of the characters isn't accentuated by close ups (and acting!). And to keep a magical shimmer throughout, the photographer decided to always shoot at 6 pm to catch that setting sun light, regardless of the actual time in the story. At 3 pm in one scene, the characters casts long shadows on the cliffs for example. Details perhaps, but still annoying. And for the romance part, there is no spark whatsoever- Firth again to blame, so the whole idea with the film falls flat.

Stone, McBurney and Atkins are great in their roles, especially with the flawed material they had to work with. The others are forgettable.

I love the books and therefore also understand the complexity of the story. And the story is not easy to portray in a film just 113 minutes long. But seeing the film for like the fifth time, now on bluray, I now realize that even though I think that the screenplay was too compressed, the film itself is really, really good. All the right details are there. The costumes are spectacular. The music score is great. The actors are spot on - I love Kidman and Richards especially - but all did a very, very good job. The special effects are truly great, everything from the alethiometer to the daimons and ice bears. Exceptionally well done. So it's really sad to realize that there will be no sequels. Pity that the producers didn't do all three books at once. But at least we can still enjoy this great piece of filmwork, because I think it is a great achievement made by people with true talent.

I gave this one a "2", solely due to the fabulous suits. Damn they look nice! But all this talk in the film about being a gentleman is poorly reflected in the dialogue and the horrendously violent action scenes. I'm sorry, but I immediately feel disgusted and come to think of all the massacres and horror that's going on in the world. I don't want to watch that as entertainment. That is just sick.

The movie also lacks something else: easy going, "real" characters. As it is, everyone behaves and talks very strange. Harry Hart, for example, is as stiff as a tree. A smile and a joke, or a witty reply to the villain would have been in order. Valentine's motives are unclear, or at least difficult to understand, and so are many of the other characters actions too. They just don't seem real, any of them, except Eggsy, who is very well played by Egerton.

I love spy movies, but this one could have been much better with a different approach. As it is, it's more or less junk and leaves a bitter after-taste due to the violence.

After watching the entire series on bluray, I have to say that the overall quality of every episode is remarkably consistent. Patrick Stewart as Captain Picard is undoubtedly brilliant, and Brent Spiner is not far behind playing the android Data. The rest of the "gang" fits in nicely, although I don't enjoy the character Worf as much and every episode with him as the main character is not as good as the others. But on the whole it is a great show with interesting reoccurring moral predicaments and philosophical questions about the understanding of humanity. As someone pointed out, the world would be a lot happier place to live in if its leaders would sit down and watch the show and learn from it.

After you finished watching the series, the perfect "epilogue" would be the only really good Star Trek film, Star Trek: First Contact (1996). An excellent finale of the whole Star Trek TNG experience, which also connects with the episode Q Who? (S2E16) where the Federation first encounter the Borg.

So, if you've never seen Star Trek before, this is the way I would start, because it is simply the best of Star Trek.

I've watched this movie many times, the first time around 1987 as a teenager. I watched it again today, and I still love it. First of all, it is very well made in every aspect. The music score by Maurice Jarre is especially amazing and as good as it'll ever get. Listen closely to it and you'll notice the outstanding quality. Not many composers are in the same league. The cast is great (including Tina, and what a great title song she delivers) and Mel Gibson is simply perfect for the role. On the whole, the movie stands out as the best post-apocalyptic movie there is. It somehow sets the mood and ambiance perfectly, with the dry, desolate, windy landscapes, and with just a pinch of romantic and comic undertones. Love it! The filming locations and sets are perfect - Aunties home and the Thunderdome - expertly made. Well, I've run out of superlatives, so just buy it on blu-ray and enjoy!

I used to think that this was one of the poorer Bond-films together with Live And Let Die, Quantum of Solace and maybe a few others. But I've come to realize that it is very enjoyable for the most part. There are some very good sequences; the Tae Kwon Do-nieces, the young thai salesman, the car chase and so on. And the settings are great - Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand. And, for once, the Bond-women are actually very good. Maud Adams plays her part very nicely, and Britt Ekland is fun as the whimsy assistant. The dialogue is great, and I enjoy the chemistry between Moore and Lee - both are excellent actors. And, of course, we see big explosions at the end.

I love this film. Jack Lemmon is outstanding and Sandy Dennis is great as the supporting wife (she's very sweet and I love the way she says "I'm getting a bit irritable" about half way into the chaos). The script is superb with funny, witty dialog. The direction and camera-work is great - sometimes almost documentary in style, sometimes very original and groundbreaking. I also love the 70s style with the cars, signs, colors, interiors and clothes. And the music! See it, buy it (if you can get hold of it). It's a film worth seeing many times. I've already said my piece, but, you know, there's this 10 line requirement, so I do a bit of rambling here. There, now it's gotten through....

Playtime is probably one of the best movies that is the most difficult to like. That's because it's very strange. Masterfully directed and photographed, but with a story that is as elusive as a greased snail. Long scenes, often with no apparent content or meaning, makes it difficult for the viewer. If you look closely, you'll notice little details that you love to giggle at, and one would more or less involuntarily make interpretations of what is really happening. Monsieur Hulot, who figures in Tati's films (Tati himself), pops up here and there in the film to a backdrop of a newly built and modernized Paris. There are certainly several interpretations of the basic plot, but my own is that Hulot represents a type of man who feel alienated in this increasingly technology-dependent world, where greyness and rectification is taking over and people are getting increasingly further apart. Hulot stumbles aimlessly about in this newly built world and messes things up most of the time. You get the feeling that all these career -seeking , money-driven people around him are unhappy and most of all looking for company. They grab onto Hulot in different situations, seeking contact, maybe because he is the only true original. The long restaurant scene is an example of how our true nature is revealed when the alcohol loosens the shackles of conformity and we begin to act like people. The orchestra, playing relaxed jazz in the beginning, gets more primitive the longer the evening goes, and eventually making the guests dancing like monkeys. No one is satisfied until half the restaurant has collapsed. The end is sad in an elusive way - it's like social progress has already dictated how we should live. The old, simpler, more human life lies behind us and will never come back .

Me and my wife really love this movie. We usually see it every early summer before vacation sets in. It's a fun satire of modern day career-building and the alienation of family members due to lack of time an over-use of technology. It is beautifully shot in the south-western US with lovely colours, sharp picture quality and good camera-work. Good soundtrack too. The script is well paced and the actors are spot on, portraying a lot of fun characters. The film only has one minor flaw in an otherwise solid storytelling- it's the scene where Cassie Munro gets a "no meat" meal from a friendly camper. That could have been kind of funny, but the scene is a bit misplaced and chopped up. On the other hand last only a few seconds, so what the heck. Recommended to everyone who likes to get outdoors and meet new people and experience this wonderful world of ours.

With so many bad reviews, I felt I had to give my own opinion of this one. Seen on DVD (I've never understood the point of 3D) and with Swedish (excellent) dub, I have to say that it is a well crafted movie for the whole family. Even my two-year old loves this movie, and after a few viewings he could actually remember some of the lines. Yes, it is kind of silly with comedy mainly based on slapstick, but that's the point I guess. It's pretty funny most of the time (even for me) and above all - good natured, which is important for the younger ones. Overall good acting as well, especially Andrew Daly and Nathan Corddry. Recommended!