Reviews

I was searching around for a gay-themed movie and stumbled on "Happiness Adjacent." I didn't know anything about the producer/director or any of the actors, so I had low expectations at best. I was pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed it and found it to be better than I expected, given the low production values. I thought the chemistry between Hank and Kurt seemed real, though I thought Rachel Alig's (as Kate) acting a little too energetic. Unlike some other reviewers, I found the Jewish humor to be fun and funny. Maybe that's because I grew up in a suburb that was 50% Jewish and most of my friends were Jewish. I had Jewish friends whose mothers actually said some of the things Hank imagined his mother would say. Give this movie a try.

April 2024: I just changed my rating from a 4 to a 7. The show has gotten better all around. Definitely give it a try.

Original Review (before update above) I really wanted to like this new show and was eager to see it. After watching the first episode, however, I am extremely disappointed. It's just terrible. I don't think it's Justin Hartley but everything else about it: the other characters (all predictable, all caricatures, some terribly acted), and the plot (again, predictable and trite). Some other viewers have suggested Justin Hartley's acting is stiff and bad. I don't think so; in fact, I think he's pretty good in this. But that can't compensate for the banal script and terrible plot. I might give it one more try and watch the second episode, but if it isn't exponentially better, I'm giving up.

I and others in my household were looking forward to seeing "Good Grief." I was never a "Schitt's Creek" fan but saw enough episodes to get the gist and a sense of the characters and acting. And lo and behold. It was all Dan Levy acting exactly as he had in "Schitt's Creek." This is clearly fine with many people. I am not a fan of his acting style.

I did think the acting of the other primary characters was quite good. And the plot was not as predictable as I expected.

But for me, the entire thing fell short because I just couldn't get beyond Dan Levy being David from "Schitt's Creek," not Marc from "Good Grief."

Even if you're desperate for a rom-com, don't watch this predictable, saccharin and poorly acted (with the exception of Jessica Rothe/Josie and John Benjamin Hickey/Pastor Brian) movie. Besides the cliche plot, the characters are two-dimensional at best. Nicholas Sparks' movies are even better. Most of the women are two-dimensional "stand by your man" gals, but I have to say, the character of Liam is so despicable that he should never have been forgiven for his antics once, let alone twice. The only things I enjoyed were the cinematography and the fictional town of St. Augustine, Louisiana. I love a good rom-com as well as anyone else, but there are far better ones out there to watch.

I often rewatch films that I like a lot; I won't be rewatching this one. But if you haven't seen it, most definitely watch it. It's compact and lean; there's nothing extraneous. It's like a super-fit person with minimal body fat. The acting is superb all around; the screen play is real; the mood appropriately dark and almost hopeless. I have always thought that Cynthia Nixon is a versatile actor and this certainly proves it. I have to say I didn't know much about Christopher Abbott before seeing him in this film but he's extremely talented. I found myself rooting for him at the end and had saw glimmer of hope that he was starting to get it together and would continue down that path. It made me want to watch more films with him in them, so that's exactly what I'm going to do.

This is a remarkable show in many ways: the superb writing, excellent acting, gorgeous cinematography, and wonderful directing. And...acne; yes, the teenagers have acne! We all had acne at that age, so this alone makes it more real than most teenage dramas. Thankfully, it's not all about the angst of coming out, which so many LGBTQ teen dramas have been (some quite, well), and which is getting hackneyed. This is about class, cultures, and plain teenage angst. And a more beautiful love story would be hard to find. What I found most interesting was that I have no experience hanging our with posh boarding school students nor anyone royal, yet I could easily identify with all the characters. I'm so glad to learn that there will be a third (and final) season.

I expected yet another banal, predictable gay rom-com. And while some of the plot is predictable, there is so much more character development than most gay rom-coms that I binged watched the entire series in two sittings. The writing is clever, the acting is very good, and the characters are multi-dimensional.

I enjoyed the many different ways the film explores relationships and people's yearning for love, despite their ages and sexual proclivities. While each character's foibles complicate their searches for love, ultimately their journeys lead them to where they should be.

If you're looking just for eye candy, you can find that here, too. And Barcelona itself is one of the stars.

It's been a long time since I watched a movie this bad. The opening was a major red flag: an elementary school teacher sobbing after reading the story of Romeo and Juliet to young children, who are appropriately bored and would rather feed the classroom's pet snake. The entire plot is banal and an insult to William Shakespeare. It also it manages to get just about every stereotype and cliche in the painful hour and a half. I would imagine that the actors, who do their best but are hampered by the awful script, are also embarrassed. Shame on you Netflix: you have and can do much better than this. There is absolutely nothing to redeem this movie. Well...maybe some of the scenes of Verona. But you're better off going there than watching this awful film.

Yes, it's another gangster film -- of sorts -- but it reminded me also of the series "Friday Night LIghts" because it's ultimately about values and the choices people make based on their values. And, of course, the values are not static but evolve. I found the acting to be excellent all around. It was especially interesting to see DiNiro in a sympathetic role. A side benefit for auto geeks is the wonderful display of 1960s cars, especially the Caddies. It's too bad that Lillo Brancato fell into drugs and crime himself, including incarceration. Supposedly, he is now clean and acting again. He's quite good.

I really, really tried to like it. I am game for any LGBTQ story. But it's just so hard to like a film that is this poorly done. The dialogue is hackneyed and the acting ranges from decent (Patricia Place) to just horrible. It is organized in chapters that don't hold together. All-in-all, a disappointed 90 minutes.

Any film with Colin Firth and Nicole Kidman is probably worth watching, and "The Railway Man" is no exception. But's it's worth watching because of its exceptionally powerful story of forgiveness, a trait increasingly rare in our contentious and partisan world. The performances of Firth, Kidman, and Stellan Skarsgard are excellent and nuanced. Hiroyuki Sanada and Sam Reid also turn in excellent performances. It's a difficult movie to watch but well-worth it. And it is based on a true story, though take some liberties by introducing a composite character and one major scene that never happened in real life. Still, it seems to capture Eric Lomax's life and book well.

Yes, it's not fast paced, so if that's what you're looking for, look elsewhere. But it's well-acted and nuanced. Much better than some of the reviews would have you believe. It's an interesting story about human behavior and motivation set during a civil unrest in Ireland and England that has people sharply divided politically. As is true in our own highly partisan U. S. these days, many of the people have limited vision and cannot entertain any ideas that aren't their own. How horribly we can all treat people based on limited knowledge of their circumstances.

At first, I thought it was just an inferior updating of "The Days of Wine and Roses," which is a spectacular film if you haven't seen it. But then I was drawn in by the really wonderful acting, particularly by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Her performance is both real and nuanced. Three excellent supporting roles are played masterfully by Mary Kay Place (is there any movie she hasn't had some supporting role in?), Megan Mullaly, and Octavia Spenser. Aaron Paul is also very good but a secondary character. The main characters are Kate and alcohol.

A truly terrible script that can't be saved by even a very good actor such as Patrick Wilson. All the other acting is pretty mediocre.

Given the length of this movie, we expected to watch it in two sittings. After all, having read Shakespeare and seen Kenneth Branagh's Henry V from years ago, we knew the plot. But the superb script, acting and cinematography just drew us in deeper and deeper, and we could not stop watching it. We have a new opinion of the depth of Timothee Chalamet's acting skills, and never tire of watching Joel Edgerton dig into a role. Even Robert Pattinson spoke plausible English with a French accent. The battle scenes are so real that we had to look away a few times. The lighting throughout is perfect. Chalamet skillfully balances being the nice guy who wants to preserve peace and an increasing ruthlessness necessary for him to advance his agenda. Watch it.

I received the entire first season of "Joan of Arcadia" as an early holiday gift from a family member. We watched both seasons religiously (pun intended) when it aired live on CBS. Our entire family thought it was one of the best-written, best-acted, intelligent shows on TV. Given that, it's no wonder it was canceled after two seasons. If it's high quality and critically acclaimed, it usually doesn't make money for the network. Welcome to our economy. At any rate, it is already my favorite gift of 2020 and I am re-watching it as we speak. It's also a perfect show to watch in our politically divisive, self-centered, pandemic times.

If you like the '40s and beautiful clothes, it's worth seeing the first episode. But there's nothing else to recommend it. Terrible writing, ridiculous plot that simply unravels, and the settings are contrived. The acting is about as nuanced as a Mack truck crashing through a retail store window.

Period dramas, particularly of historical figures who so prominently figured in their countries and cultures, typically add some characters and some minor plot line additions to support the dramatic underpinning of the movie. With this version of "Mary Queen of Scots," however, it is the historically accurate moments that are the rarity. Please, please don't encourage younger people to see it to learn about the history of England and Scotland in the mid 1500s.

But it's still worth seeing. The acting is excellent, as are the costumes and panoramic settings. In particular, it provides a close-up look at what battle was all about in the Middle Ages, where queens themselves rode into battle with their warriors. A far cry from today's leaders, who fly in and out for a 20-minute "hello" with our brave and dedicated troops.

This movie is so well done on so many fronts: the acting and the screenplay in particular. The characters are real: flawed, struggling with self-esteem, likable, human. The script is well written. I have never been a Julia Louis-Dreyfus fan, but her expressions and awkwardness and painful mistakes as Eva are embarrassingly real. James Gandolfini is both vulnerable and tough enough that he's not going to be walked over. This role in particular underscores the loss to all of us of such a multi-faceted actor. I thought Catherine Keener was good, though I find that she tends to play all her roles the same way. Toni Collette, besides being one of my favorite actors, is perfect in her role as a "must rearrange the house because I can't sit still with my life" woman. But it's the script that gives the actors the tool for their wonderful performances. It's tight, and realistic and not the least bit melodramatic. The three girls: Tess, Chloe and Ellen are all wonderful. Tess, because we can see immediately the insecurity beneath her arrogance, Chloe because of her borderline inappropriate neediness, and Ellen because of her simmering anger at her mother for almost replacing her before she had packed for college.

Because of the nuanced performances, this is a move I will watch again.

Ray Donovan writers should be held liable for plagiarism for stealing just about every plot and character idea from HBO's Sopranos. The difference is that the characters and plot lines in Sopranos, no matter how far-fetched, were believable and superbly acted. There's nothing believable about Ray Donovan. It's "Sopranos light" with the emphasis on "light." Liev Schreiber has ONE look and only one look. Whether he's just had amazing sex or is about to contemplate how to get his father re-convicted, his look never changes. John Voight is the one shining star in the show. He actually ACTS and he does it well. He gives a nuanced performance that's far deeper than anyone else's on the show.

While some of the characters/actors from "The Closer" are still appealing in "Major Crimes," the plot lines have become vapid and unbelievable. "The Closer" focused on pursuing crime and the characters' personal lives were used to support the primary plot line. With "Major Crimes" the characters' personal lives are primary; the show has turned into a soap opera. At first, I thought it was at least entertaining, but now I don't even find it that.

At the same time, the acting of many of the characters remains strong and because of that, the weak scripts and plot lines become even more evident. Mary MacDonald's character was sufficiently developed in "The Closer" that she is believable in her new role.

If you're looking for a light drama or comedy, don't choose Being Flynn. But if you want to see the masterful acting of Robert DeNiro and Paul Dano, and you're up for serious subject matter, this is an outstanding film. The script does not sugar-coat any aspects of addiction or homelessness. It tells it like it is. The key characters are multi-dimensional, and I found myself rooting for them at times and wanting to kick their butts at other times. Besides the obvious subject matter of addiction and homelessness, the film also address the challenges we all have dealing with whether we are or are not our parents -- or at least looking at parts of ourselves we don't like that we also don't like in our parents. And the feelings of guilt and shame experience by Nick over the death of his mother are palpable.

The only thing I found disconcerting was that fact that it was supposed to be set in Boston and, with the exception of one recognizable Boston location, it was so obviously filmed in New York.

The good: very well acted all around and nice cinematography. The bad: one cliché after another from the over-weight, suspendered right-wing politician with the alcoholic wife to the on-again off-again "relationship" between Anthony and Henry, to the self-destructive HIV- positive roommate who is "saved" by true love.

The plot moves from one predictable moment to another, and that's what really ruins this film. The part involving the senator's limo and Izzy is totally unbelievable, especially what happens after. The premise of the story -- that Henry would tell his story to a reporter after it had been plastered throughout the news media -- is also unbelievable.

Other aspects are good, particularly the acting by all. Henry is appropriately arrogant, vulnerable and defiant. Karen Allen is great as the long-suffering mother.