Reviews

I agree with everyone's comments that this is so far from reality. But in reply to another comment, Sisi and FJ married in 1854. Napoleon III started his reign in 1852. So if the comment is in reference to one of the first scenes of episode 1, then yes Napoleon was definitely alive.

Now on the other hand, did Sisi get attacked by Hungarians in the woods and FJ saved her? No. Did she wander the streets and pay to get into a brothel, haha, no way.

So definitely fictionaized, but I'd like to think that they at least got the rulers right. Including the mention of Tsar Nicholas I who reigned until 1855.

I've read a lot of the historical books on this couple and this period. But to be honest, I also fell in love with the kitch-ey Romy Schneider movies. Shows are allowed to take liberties. If you don't like that, watch a documentary.

I DO agree that the history itself is so dramatic it wouldn't need romanticizing, but I won't knock off my rating because it is, I'll let myself roll with it. I'm excited at the thought of 2-3 seasons worth.

The pace. The storytelling. I don't think I breathed the entire time.

Last week and the week before their dialog annoyed me. I felt it was trying too hard.

This episode. It's perfection. The personal mixed with the reality of business. Watching them process minute by minute, each in their own way. The phone near his ear and how they each couldn't get the words out and it was mixed feelings... and then all four of them. Their reactions. It's like we were living it with them.

Then Connors' decision at the end. The way the three acted once the plane landed.

This is also a nod to all those who've witnessed their parent(s) pass.

Agee with all other reviews on the mix of all the good and all the ... ugh.

So rip randomly sees two asians hanging off a cliff.

A) are they part of the tourist bus, if so, don't you think the tour agent would have noticed two people missing and sent out a search party

B) Rip throws a rope at her but like... he's holding it with one hand, how light does he think she is ? He doesn't hold onto the tree until all hell starts breaking loose, until then it's one hand on the rope while he's pointing to them on what to do with the other.

C) so much other odd things but the worst: SHE WAIVED AT HIM!!!!! She's holding off a cliff with two hands but she casually takes one hand away to waive at him??????? I mean, I get that she could afford to free a hand, as apparently she was able to catch the rope but still that seemed so casual.

Ugh. Just ugh.

This show has always aspired to be gritty. It's based on a movie where most of them die. Why would people be disappointed with the ending, how else could it have ended. Wrapping it up with a bow, showing deran reunite with Adrian/Nick, J not betraying, Pople somehow surviving.... None of that would be true to form.

I read another review that said this has always been a journey of revenge. I agree 100%. This was a slow burn coming the whole time. Even the ramp up of the flashbacks. It was all leading to something.

Great show. One of the few I'd watch again. A couple loser seasons in the middle (maybe after Baz dies or right after Smurf) but strong start and fantastic ending. With the house burning (always thought of the house as one of the characters, it was so present) to boot.

Season 1 had a real reason for being. In addition to the Ted Lasso way, the essence of the show was: less drama, no major evil main characters, the kindness... but also: this is a show about a coach and a team.

Season 2: started exploring back stories, spending more time on the individuals and their relationships off the pitch. I suppose if they didn't, we'd criticize it for being one dimensional. So they went the classic melodramatic way, there was no central arc... and full episodes with zero soccer, team, coaching, changing room scenes! None! At times, other than his accent, we forget this was also about cultural differences (sure they place the funny lines and endlessly remind us he doesn't like sparking water, but it feels forced).

I know they could claim Ted is all about enabling others and bringing the individuals out... which is exactly what S2 was.

I just wish series were able to show character development without turning into melodrama or having them change completely from where they started ...

Result: the last 10 mins of S2 don't even have Ted in it. Can we explore if he wants to stay or go back to see his kid? Can we have a sign off with coach beard? Anything????

(Also pls don't split keelee and Roy up!)

Finally. My most major gripe. NATHAN! What have they done with him? Why did they need to make him turn? That's precisely what the show isn't about!!!! Ted should have been able to rescue him back from this dark path. Ted was sleeping on the job. Grrrr, as Roy would say.

Yeah I'll agree, enough with the Hatosy skateboard shots. It's not even like he's doing backflips or anything that great.

So.... Watching Derren and Craig storylines: was I the only one thinking one of those two was hanging out with a cop? Either the biker dude or the boyfriend? And turns out it's Pope that's got a snitch around him? I didn't see that coming.

Flashbacks were eh this time. Usually I like them. Young Pope doesn't work for me. But yes I like seeing how they're starting to do jobs together. Would like to see the smaller kids running around. Is it just me or is it that the reason for the flashbacks is by season end we'll find ourselves at s1e1 and... and Scott Speedman appearance? A girl can hope. Lol.

The story: yes it's one insane scenario after another, but honestly, knowing what would really happen a few years later ... not that insane. The New York response: it's a scenario. A possibility. I mean we watch movies about viruses spreading and can believe the army moves in. Why not here. I was willing to go on for the ride.

So for trying to allow us to imagine a worst case scenario, I think: good job.

It's the filming that made this less impactful. I don't know if it's the direction, or what other technical role but it just doesn't flow well. It's like someone singing that's just out of tune, you can't pinpoint it but you know it's off.

Example: after Tony Shaloub's character agrees to come back to work. Him, Denzel are leaning over the top of car while Annette Bening is in the car with her informant. She comes out. Her and Denzel exchange words. He kisses her on the cheek (which, in itself was weird, I don't think they had bonded that much). She gives him a sentence about "if it doesn't work out" and leaves. It should have dramatic. Tension building. Something! It left me cold. It was poorly paced. She didn't react off of him. They didn't bond. Something was missing.

Again I'm not technical, so I don't know how to pinpoint which filming role failed.

Anyway, I feel like it was like that for most scenes. The scenes should have impact and be dramatic by what was happening, but they weren't.

And thus, I think, the comments others are making about feeling disjointed and lack lustre.

With a story THAT big, we should have been on the edge of our seats.

Downfall of this was the story.

I mean.. it's a good movie in that you have two great actors and they're putting in a good performance. Well directed and just generally what you'd expect from a big movie production.

And Denzel was just being Denzel. He's naturally such a good actor that whatever he does is good acting. But this is so standard ... I get he's trying to be all crazy cop and all, and sure, he's believable because he's a good actor. But you see Denzel. Not the character.

Actually Ethan was maybe better in that it was a nuanced performance and there was nothing overly typical about his portrayal. He was believable as his character.

But the story. Did nothing for me. And the fact that it happens in a single day, makes it feel unrealistic. All that? In a single day? Why? It just felt like a series of events. With too many coincidences and things that couldn't have happened. They find the wallet and just happens to be his niece's? Jake's gone through all this and he's already able to figure out how to take him down that's very evening?

I think what it is is that this movie got just high reviews. And so expectations were high. First time I started watching, I fell asleep. Nothing gripped me. I thought it must have been just me, since the review where so high. Second time, I watched it all. Again, story was so not gripping, I followed while spending 1/2 the time on my phone, to avoid being bored.

So yeah. Meh.

Haters gonna hate, I guess... others seem to love it, even those I went to see it with.

Honestly, I just found it "ok". Didn't leave me a lasting impression.

Seeing big deals in reviews here re accents: found them on point. Gaga was good.

Costumes and scenery : fabulous, takes you right back to the era. Love it.

Story: given I didn't know much, super interesting... and allowed me not to criticize too much departure from reality

Jared Leto: omg. Sooooo annoying. I guess I'd want to see the character and how close (or not) he was, but this + some weirdly funny moments when they shouldn't be = wondering if it was meant to look like a farce vs a serious drama. It was a bit.. yeah, farcical, not sure how else to describe.

And then small gripe: why show they only had one child when they had 2? Not sure what it added/simplified just to allude to a second.

Given that the focus here was the father and not the girls, then why omit his very complicated life, all his other kids... I get it, it's about not jsut focusing on him, but how his singular focus is the reason for their success (one sided view, of course, but that was the point of the movie). Still if this is a biopic on a person we don't know, then give us the full picture however ugly it is.

Tangent: I agree with most reviews so far but... those saying they like Will Smith so it's a shame he's playing someone not very nice? A) people are complex, he's not "not nice", in fact his focus on love and family is commendable but he, like all of us, is a product of his early life and upbringing b), sounds like in real life it was worse c) actors love playing complex roles of less than perfect people... you can't relate the character and the actor but rather congratulate Smith for taking on a complex study of a man... very worthy acting.

Anyway.

• So first we actually don't see his full life (ton/ of other kids, three marriages, this one ended in divorce)
• Then they only breeze over topics like how important their mom was as a trainer ... and how this film is so focused on Venus. While I LOVE the scene where he tells Serena she will be the greatest, and while I get that, during those years, the focus was Venus as she was older... just felt odd.

• And then they totally ignore other facts (I get you can't put it all in), like how one of the three other daughters was just as good but had to drop out due to injury, when I read that I found it fascinating

Anyway all in all great film for the acting and that it was successful in the story it was trying to tell, even tho the reality is never quite the same... but that's the curse of a biopic: take a specific angle and you're accused of diverging from reality, stick to reality (all of it) and it's a documentary or boring...

A 6 because the action is good most times, the scenery choices are lovely ... and Daniel Craig is still suave and bond-like. With a nice touch on the portraits of previous Ms.

There's a much better review I read by a user, explaining what are the ingredients of a Bond movie and how they are not here. So I won't repeat.

But look Aston Martins, Q and gadgets, do not, a Bond movie make... if you don't use them properly.

This was long, the slow scenes where too slow. The dialog was just. Not. Clever. Just a bore. "Oh there's a lot of blood" he says to Jeffrey Wright. Seriously? Yes a couple witty lines but drowned in boring ones. That's when they're not being overly sappy.

I appreciate Hans Zimmer did the music but... the end... oh my goodness could we have any more sweeping melodramatic music? Oy.

I sooooooo wanted to like this one. Bringing back characters and visiting old history re: Vespa had me so excited. I love me some good continuity. But this really left me flat.

And the 007 thing. If you're gonna give it to someone else, I love the idea of it being a woman (better than giving me a new bond series with Bond reinvented as a woman... and yes I'm a female) ... but, and no disrespect to the actress, she had to work with what she was given... but they gave that character NOTHING.. her role was just to be second to him and rescue his missus. That's an insult to 007. Cuz... it's NOT just a number. The new 007, especially if she's gonna be a woman, has to be kickass like him. Not this nonsense.

Plus given how much chemistry he had with Eva Green in Casino Royal... and her being his great love... to be followed by this? The female characters were terrible in this movie. The mother of his child being such a sappy bore? The kid had more personality than she did.

Only the lovely Paloma was decent with the right amount of fiesty-ness and damsel in distress. But she was there for 2 and a half minutes.

Anyway. I need a better ending for the character than this least-charismatic-bond-girl-ever and 007b watching him die from afar.

The only reason i couldn't give this movie a zero is because it chose to talk about a very interesting period of time. Usually, we see movies about the civil war, but never about AFTER the civil war. I am a history buff, and while i'm not expecting this movie to replace a documentary on the topic, i think that it brings up an interesting point about how a society deals with the aftermath of a huge event like the civil war.

The concept of the white landowners trying to go back to pre-civil war days, but black people suddenly understanding that they no longer need to take this kind of treatment was interesting. I liked seeing the origins of the KKK, and honestly, while i think what they stand for is despicable, i can understand how it came about. It came about at a period where white men were desperately trying to control a changing social environment they felt they were loosing control over. So we see the origins of the image we have of white guys riding horses with white covers over their faces and an outfit reminiscent of the crusades.

That was the good. Now the bad. Actually, if i had to say what was bad, this would be a never-ending post, so i'll mention the 2 main points.

I think that the poor actors were victims of terrible directing and writing. Every single character was either really bad and despicable with NO redeeming qualities, or was the strong silent type super hero who is chivalrous and considerate and passionate. The comic relief of Billy Zane was the only saving grace, it's like he knew this was an awful movie and figured he'd make the most of it by being utterly comical.

But as a woman, what offended me the most, was that every female character was there only to be raped or abused. It felt like i was watching a really bad porn movie (no not for the sexual content) where every single scene is a direct unrealistic fantasy of its director. The white men walked around like they owned every woman in town, but more than that, the woman are depicted as enjoying how they are treated (thus my comment about being a director's fantasy).

Having said that, it just occurred to me that this was produced by the star of the show, same guy who plays in the Y&R daytime soap opera i believe. and that explains the way this movie is filmed, with the glossy headshots of the star, damsels in distress and white man chauvinism.

To be honest, i don't GET this movie.

But first, what i DO get:

1. i get that there's a bunch of aliens that have been planning this for years and years, before our race ever existed (so far, so good, interesting premise)

2. i get that Tom Cruise's character started off as an awful dad then suddenly turned into a great dad (fair enough, why not)

3. I also agree that acting was decent, that there were some plot holes, but that generally, this movie made for a thrilling ride.

4. I also understand that this is supposed to be one family struggle, and NOT the story of how the US government conquered the aliens, so we did NOT get the usual situation room discussions between highest ranking officials of the world discussing a strategy to fight back.

And therein lies the problem. If all you want to do is show me how a family deals with this crazy situation, then this movie is brilliant. because you see the way Tom Cruise, as a dad, has no choice but just to react to what's going on, and just keep running, with one goal in mind, save his children.

But unfortunately, for 5 minutes in the movie, they are trying to tell us that Tom Cruise is NOT just an average dad, and that somehow, he had something to do with the downfall of the aliens. First, by sticking a grenade inside the aliens, and 2nd, by being the only one to notice, at the end, that the aliens are dying, 'cause there's a bunch of birds picking on the metal.

SO, from this, there's can only be 2 conclusions of the director's intentions:

1. If Tom Cruise was, indeed, the catalyst, then he should have somehow been rewarded or at least acknowledged by the government

2. if he wasn't (which, i don't think he was, seeing the concluding narration, the defeat of the aliens was for an entire other reason related to bacteria and environment), then please, for the sake of respecting your audience, can you please EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS HAPPENED, rather than sticking a 10 second narration by Morgan Freeman at the end to give it a neat wrap-up?

I am not a biologist. I don't understand what you mean by "the aliens doomed themselves by breathing our air and our race has every right to reclaim its place on this earth"... say what to who??????

Honestly, this is what i feel happened: the movie was originally filmed to be a whole lot longer, and then had to be cut, and it was the explanation parts that got cut, leaving us with a purely action movie (no problem there), but with no substance when in fact there should have been some.

I think this movie is a dis-service to Spielberg AND to HG Wells.