Reviews

The writing is superb. Jihan Crowther, Barry Jenkins, Colson Whitehead and all the other WRITERS of this series do a great job.

This Series is based on a book. I haven't read it, so I don't know who's stylistic choice it was to have an actual train, which did not exist in the actual underground railroad.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about this subject than what was taught to me in 7th or 8th grade. So, I don't know if the town depicted in North Carolina actually existed, or how much of it is true, given the stylistic choice of Magic Realism a la Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

Here lies my beef with this WONDERFUL production: These stylistic choices are a missed opportunity for us all to learn more. The subject matter is so gripping, so painful, so embarrassing, so uplifting, so adventurous on its own merit, and the writers and actors are SOOOO SUPERB, that this series could have been a 10 sans the fairytale portions.

Still, this is a must see for EVERYONE. I even would encourage children of 9 and above to watch it. Hard? Yes, of course it is. But it's also educational.

The writing is very good. This is a terrifying thriller with an appropriate name.

Servillo has made such an odd stylistic choice for the interior spaces in this film. They don't resemble anything usual or commonplace I've seen in Italy while I lived there or in my various travels to the country. The symbolism of the red interiors in Linda's and the Lai apartments clamors for attention but I find it unnecessary and distracting from the story's credibility. The same applies to the fleas on Bunny's pillow or any other interior in the film.

Dustin Hoffman is excellent as always. I like the choice to do a film in 2 languages. I think it resembles the globalized culture we are becoming. There are immigrants and emigrants in almost every country and this movie reflects it as an incidental issue. It is also reflected in the surnames of the characters and the doctors at the hospital.

Did the movie wow me? No. But I can't say I found it predictable. The small parts of predictability were indeed obscured by the labyrinth.

Hugo Blick's writing is IMPECABLE! I can't even begin to think the amount of research that went into this production.

I watched this series a few days ago and I found it so impactful that I'm still thinking about it. This is surprising, adventurous, audacious, endearing, touching, violent, thrilling. A Western with SOOOO much meat that even non Western viewers like myself will appreciate it.

It touches issues that we don't think about in contemporary days. How violence against women was not uncommon; how aristocratic peerage is most often the result of violence and plunder, same as many wealthy "old" families in America became wealthy and "respectable"; how 2 people who are so very different can find common ground and a sense of home; how history has ignored illnesses that were shameful.

I could go on but if I did, I wouldn't be able to highlight the SUPERB work that Chaske Spencer has done in this mini series. Blunt is very good, and doesn't dissapoint, but Chaske Spencer has definitely entered my radar. Now I have a few things in my watchlist where he appears. He is brilliant!

I don't see how this series could have anything less than 9 stars. It gets 10 stars from me.

I'm familiar with Sheen's work. I like the way he acts and the scripts he selects. 2 things astonished and delighted me about Good Omens 1:

1. The writing is a 10. Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett selected the most interesting subject to create a show and made a comedy jewel. I have only recently learned Good Omens' originated as a book. It is now in my shopping cart.

2. David Tennant is one of those actors who had passed me by. I remember thinking he was good. I suppose I took him for granted. I've never watched Dr. Who, or seen him in a Shakespeare play. 2 errors I plan to correct.

Tennant is BRILLIANT as Crowley. Recently, I coincidentally watched a couple of other movies he's in. He changes his voice and affects his accent perfectly each time. Tennant has created a specific walk for Crawley. The way he moves around Aziraphale at the Globe Theatre as a snake encircling his pray. The teen-like manner he moves when he's annoyed. Tennant is an 11 out of 10!

The only reason I gave this show 9 stars is I don't like the custom choice for Anathema Device. She's a contemporary "witch." I fail to see the point of dressing her like a dark Mary Poppins.

I haven't watched season 2 yet. I've decided to watch Season 1 again before getting to Season 2. I'm enjoying every bit of it! I think you will too.

EDIT: Just watched season 2. Terry Pratchett's input is really missing here. I can't help to think if he were alive, this story wouldn't have taken this direction. This has nothing to do with moral judgement. I just think part of what makes the show so compelling is it's interpretations of the portions where the characters intersect with passages of the Bible. The storyline has been completely divorced from the original concept on season 2. My score for this series is now a 7. Tennant is still brilliant.

I don't know how this move eluded me, but I'm really glad I caught it now.

Kirsten Dunst and Joanna Lumley are very good, as always. Much like Lumley, I don't think I've seen Kristen Dust have much of an opportunity to stretch her range in the roles she played when she was younger. Counting the exception of the wonderful role that thrust her into stardom at "Interview With The Vampire" and the one she played on "Fargo", Dunst usually plays these sweet, fun-loving, adorable roles, which she does so well. Even when she's portraying depressed characters, they are still sweet and adorable.

However, it was Eddie Izzard's chameleonic performance that left me with my jaw open: He obviously looks different, but he also sounds different. He won me over in this performance as Chaplin, where before I even knew who he was, he has a full conversation with Dunst's character just with his facial expressions and left me feeling everything Charlie is feeling at that moment.

The plot is as yellow as W. R. Hearst's publishing was, and I'm ashamed to admit I gobbled it all up. The script is as excellent, as all the performances. But Eddie Izzard is SUPERB!

I'm off to find more movies where he acts.

Absurd movie. Only people as obtuse as the Pablo wannabe would enjoy it.

This boasts an absurd premise and Spanish speaking actors who can't speak Spanish without an American accent, let alone a Colombian accent. I'm looking at you Diablo, but this applies to every other actor who wasn't an extra.

Geographically inaccurate. The only near by town with a large body of water is a lake. Please explain how you got a shark there.

While we're at it: a hotel in the Comuna 13? Really???

The car under the semi scene, must have been the tallest semi, prime for rolling over in the tight hairpin turns of the roads between the mayor cities of Colombia, paired with lowest car in the history of the country: prime for getting stuck in potholes or at the foot of the myriad of hills within the city.

Need I go on? I always finish a movie, but my time is far too valuable for this one. I just couldn't.

I've seen other works from this writer/director. He is fast becoming one of my favorite screen writers in Spanish.

Argentina 1985 is well researched. Santiago Mitre and Mariano Llinas skillfully infuse much needed dry humor in all the right places, this adds levity to the sordid, painful detail of the subject matter. I also appreciate how the women in this movie are strong characters full of conviction, from the secretary, to the wife, to the daughter, to the staff. If you're looking for a wallflower, you won't find one here.

I also appreciate the relationship between father and son. I grew up in a country going through a very tumultuous time. Seeing the whole family watching the political interview and its relevance, is a reminder of my own childhood/adolescence, and a stark contrast with what I see in the US.

I highly recommend this movie. It's easy to care for all the characters and to become enthralled in the plot.

I gave this series a 10 to offset the overwhelming amount of undeserved 1s, but in my mind it's more like an 8.

The series is coherent and well written. The historical facts interwoven are well researched and interesting. The actors are very good. So, I find it undeserving of anything lower tan a 5 just because of the off-putting comparison about football players being objectified, as slaves were at an auction, per the writers' sensibilities; which is what I found to be the #1 complaint of reviewers who gave it 1 star.

Think about it: A team's fans are the only ones who can have real loyalty towards a team. It's players can be bought or sold at the whim of the team owners. The only option they have is to decide whether or not they still wish to work in their profession.

I love Mr. Sorkin's writing and rigorous research and what about this genius casting director?

This is nothing less than an impecable film with a fantastic script and serius actors, who are brilliant in leading roles and excellent as an ensemble cast.

Watch this. You won't regret it!

The script is clever and kind. Thomas and Thomas give us a window into inuit culture in Greenland, which is lovely, but mainly this movie is about connection. It offers us lovely pause and reflection.

Armando Iannucci's humor is impecable!

Fantastic cast!

I adore the stylistic choice of allowing the actors say their lines with their authentic accent.

This film is perfect theater. I'm particularly fond of the scene where the committee assembles while Stalin is "feeling unwell". Haaa!

The writing is top notch as story telling and also for it's quips like the tip of the hat to Tarantino's Honey Bunny and Honey Bear. I love the "make America great again" and "put America first " references by script writers Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz, Kevin Willmott and Lee.

Spike Lee is one of my favorite directors. He is meticulous and intelligent. I adored the juxtaposition of the meetings with the crowd arm up in the air chanting " white power " and "black power " respectively.

Just brilliant. This movie needs to reach a wide audience.

This rating has little to do with lack of empathy with those who suffer depression, or inability to notice nuance, or a need to be mindlessly entertained by fast-paced car chases; but I'm 30 min into it, and I can no longer stand the amateuresque hand-held camera, the pretentious musical choice, nor the slow pace of this movie; and this critique comes from someone who has only walked out of a theater once.

The actors are good, and the dialogue is not so bad, but could be better. I finished the movie while dong dishes and various house chores only to give it a fair review.

The images used on the opening credits are promising, but completly disconected from the Hollywood "Disneyesque" version of the Jackal portayed here. For a far more interesting movie, closer to the real story and character, watch "CARLOS", the 2010 mini series.

This underrated movie deserves to be watched! Yes, the ending can be hokey, but what else do you expect from a Christmas movie?

The writing is funny, the cast is terrific, it's easy to care for the characters, the customes are great, and Rob Rainer is the right choice as a director.

Don't wait until next Christmas to watch it.

The cast includes some of my favorite actors. The storyline, based on the writings of Stephan Zweig, is gripping. The script is well-written and funny. The costume and production design are exquisite. The photography is sublime. The color palette is lovely in pink hues, and has beautiful lighting. All these factors make this film an enchanting pop-up book come to life, which in no way trivializes the harsh realities of war, of loneliness, of greed; but instead, heightens the purity of kindness, and treats the subject with the courageous optimism of Fellini's "Nights of Cabiria".

I just adore John Turturro's perspective. He's profound and funny.

This film is beautifully written, shot in warm optimistic yellow hues, it shows humanity in different spectrums of color as it illuminates subjects of dogma, banality, morality, the sacred and the profane.

I love it!

This movie is so very well choreographed. It has a terrific soundtrack, perfect graffiti to go along with the music, and a fantastic cast. The beginning gets 10 stars from me.

On minute 10, it starts to go into cliche territory; I let it slide. While it is entertaining and has some good humor, the dialogue deteriorates into cheesier territory when the character of The Butcher is introduced. Paul Williams (the Butcher) is a great actor, by the way, I love and respect his work, so again, I let it slide; but I'm having trouble with the movie.

Until we reach the 1:35 hr mark, and that's when I say... "Are you kidding me?! There's funny/cool absurdity, and then there's just absurdity. Are we lowering the bar yet again, now that we're so close to the finish line in a movie that lasts 1:43 hr?" And that's my main issue with this film, it could have coasted at a nice, solid 7 stars, but it ends at a 5.5 stars for me.

I found it entertaining, but it seems the writing team lost a couple of writers due to a violent stomach flue just at the time the studio moved up the deadline, and well, this is what we got.

I appreciate the plot of this movie was still somewhat unpredictable, and for that, I give it 5 stars, even if the structure or premise of most scenes was incongruous. This rating also reflects my sympathy for actors: Michael Pitt, Anna Brewster, and Edgar Ramirez, who's work I respect, not only here, but on other productions of far better quality than this one.

This movie has the same problem all Netflix action movies have: Good actors, on productions with bad storylines. Netflix has cornered the market of action movies, that have half baked scripts, and mediocre directors. They should seriously consider the immediate cessation of the production of films in this genre.

This series has some of the best lines I've heard in a looooong time!

John River: -"Love... I've been trying to remember what that feels like, to be in love. It's been a while. For whatever reason, it has passed me by. The closest I got felt like food poisoning.

In books, in films and plays it's always so compelling, so complex. There should be more than one word for love. I've seen love that kills and I've seen love that redeems. I've seen love that believes in the guilty and love that saves the bereaved. What we will do for love... Die for it, even."

I have the greatest respect for Mr. Scorsese. I adore that he brought the band together of Gangster Film Greats: Deniro, Pacino and Pesci. Even the supporting cast are heavyweights: Paquin, Keitel, and Romano. The casting was a great business choice; it surely got us all to watch, didn't it?

However, this film was seriously miscast for the story. The roles these guys were playing belonged to actors 30 years younger than they are; and in the case of "The Kid" Deniro: 50 years younger than him; and even though Scorsese tried to overcome this issue with technology, the 30 years gap is simply too hard to breach. I wonder... why is this subject being blatantly ignored? Can you imagine how the public would be up in arms if women played roles written for someone 30 years younger? Would that movie receive even one Oscar nomination? On this year alone, 2020, I have watched several films where women in their 20s portray characters in their 30s, and good luck finding a movie with actresses in their 40s or 50s.

On a positive note: This movie is very well researched. For me, to see this on Netflix was the best venue possible. I watched it twice. The first time, I watched the full movie over 2 days, and the second time, on my computer with the occasional split-screen while I googled the names and delved deeper into the stories of the Chicago Mafia characters, the government guys who ended up in the Nixon impeachment hearings, the Bay of Pigs, etc. I loved it.

I am a MASSIVE fan of Sir Attenborugh's work. His documentaries are in my opinion, the best in this genre. The research is profound, his writing is excellent, the photographers with whom he works are the best of the best, the amount of work and time invested in capturing just one image is evident, his narration style and voice are a delight, and he always works with a superb team of directors, producers and editors. Am I gushing? Yes, but then again, you already knew I would upon reading the title.

This movie, aside from having great actors and an interesting plot that could apply to how and why all wars begin, is a feast for the eyes.

Beautifully shot! This film is an ode to late XIX and early XX century film and architecture. It lovingly gives a nod to Antoni Gaudi's invaluable contribution to the city of Barcelona; to the fathers of cinema: the Lumière brothers (see Dance Serpentine,1899 on YT); and to film pioneer Georges Méliès (see Le Voyage Dans la Lune, 1902 also on YT).

Carefully written. Never dull. This film respectfully and intelligently does not portray absolute good or bad / black or white characters, while it leads the viewer to care for, or detest said characters. It has a great supporting cast, especially Tisico, who much to my surprise ended up being portrayed by the chameleonic Ernesto Alterio, who has played the leading man in many comedic roles, and the role of Salvador Osuna Nava in Narcos: Mexico.

This film has it all. What else could one ask of a movie? I highly recommend it!

Pouring with generosity in love in every relationship portrayed. Clever. Funny. Humane. Rom-Com with a social message.

Highly recommend it!