Reviews

Flimsy script, tired plots, ridiculous dialogue, actors who are aware they are 'acting', contrived and oh so slow! Someone, please take these people out of their misery.

If this was a history lesson in school it would be deemed unfit. Rating this high means a lack of knowledge of history. It has already been proven that the Sumerians are the earliest culture to invent all that is claimed by the Greeks in this series. The Sumerians lived in CITIES by 5300 BC, or earlier, had a god who saved mankind, they invented democracy etc, and the Greeks copied it. So did the Egyptians. It was Rome that brought everything to the next level. Visit Rome and you will see a thriving, cultural, business, international city. Visit Athens and you have a snap shot of its short history long, long ago. Classical Greece lasted one century, and it encompasses the lifetimes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Socrates was put to death for his philosophies by the Athenians themselves! They burned his teachings, and all we know of them is what Plato, his student remembered,. Plato's student was Aristotle. Aristotle's student was Alexander the Great, who then conquered Greece. That's 100 years.

I commend the writers for their bold foray into the political and social ripples for a black Captain America. I think they did a fine job. The only disappointment is the actress playing Karli. There was a mismatch between her role and and her actual performance. She is not believable as the villain.; and if the villain is weak the story is weak. Think super villain à la James Bond. She was not it.

Given the many inputs and cameos from various professors, historians and authors, you would think the script would be more accurate. Calling it an empire built on blood - "Roman Empire: Reign of Blood" - is the comment I particularly found the most hilarious. Show me one empire that is not built on blood- Alexander the Great, Hannibal, the Vikings, William the Conqueror, Charlemagne? Need I go on? Netflix, you can do better.

The male lead is given an elaborate back story (poor little rich boy narrative, mother dies at childbirth, cold distant father, lonely upbringing, etc). The actor playing the lead is witless and bland, an untalented, cheesy 'Fabio' wanna-be. Yet the leading lady, who has a very thin backstory shines through in every scene. She is the real star here. I cannot fathom why the creators decided to promote the series using the cheesy leading man as the supposed star. The leading lady must be so miserable! She does manage to put on a brave face in the interviews, a testament to her great acting.

There are many themes in this well written, well-acted movie. Seeing it again in my adult years, a new perspective emerged. The men in Andie's life consist of her dad, her friend Duckie, and a school friend, Blane. Duckie and her dad can't seem to take responsibility for their behaviour, nor their own happiness. Duckie says to Andie, "I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not you like me, because I live to like you ." He holds Andie responsible for his happiness and plays the victim.

Blane is willing to walk with Andie through the minefields of their respective social peers. He shoulders responsibility and tries to clear the way for a solid relationship with Andie. He cracks under that weight. Later he tells Andie "I believed in you, I always believed in you. It was you who didn't believe in me." That's when Duckie realizes Blane is the better man. What will Duckie do about that?

Early in the movie I thought I was watching a re-enactment of Black Hawk Down. Great effects. Fast paced movie, chases, comic turns, great scenery. The actors selected as the group of 'ghosts' have great chemistry. Watch it at least once.

A compilation of disjointed scenes, implausible situations, and a laughable version of Robin Hood. Sound editing missed their mark too. We get a no-talent lead who had his chance to prove his worth as an actor but keeps going back to cliched renditions of a smarmy, unpleasant fellow that fails as a leading man.

The source material is a 2016 novel 'Good Morning, Midnight' by Lily Brooks-Dalton. It provides much to work with but Clooney could not even ride the coattails of the author's wonderful vision. Sad to note that a man with the money to deliver, doesn't. I gave the movie 1 star because the site would not permit a 0 rating.

What is also sad is how professional film critics are 'dancing' all over this movie; they dare not offend the 'almighty' George Clooney. As someone else said on this forum: The only Clooney with any talent was Rosemary.

It is refreshing to see a female role where the character (Rachel) is both accomplished and kind. These two attributes are not mutually exclusive. You can be both. And therein lies the conflict in the movie. Eleanor had not been deemed worthy to join the Young family. Chances are she was not. Because in her older years her pettiness and divisiveness prove her unworthiness. You cannot change you who are. Eleanor remained the same person she was when she was young. Her modern day equivalent in the movie is Michael, Astrid's husband. As Astrid says to him 'I cannot make you what you are not.'

This flat, poorly scripted movie clearly draws from (read copied) "West Side Story", Singing in the Rain", "Funny Face" (the balloons), "Moulin Rouge", "Top Hat" and actually succeeds in failing. We even hear Kermit the Frog's 'Rainbow Connection' in Emma's song about her aunt.

When the screen said "Five Years Later" I sighed with relief. Thank God I did not have to sit for five years in front of this disaster! I can write a better script than that, many can. And with all those movies the writer/director copied from, he should have delivered a product that was at least watchable. Not an Oscar contender at all! Don't waste your time or your money.

Yes, Guy Ritchie did it. He improved on the original 1960's series. Not surprising, given the amazing talent he worked with. This trio of actors is simply excellent and each plays a role out of their 'depth,' with added accents, and a comedic twist. Yes, Armie Hammer was funny in "The Lone Ranger,' but here he shows us he can act! And Hugh Grants limited scenes still impact the movie in a very positive way. The chase scenes are intense, the rivalry is realistic, the bonding is believable, the characters remain human despite the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in. The soundtrack is great. Well done, all !

I saw this movie at the Italian Film Festival in Montreal just last week.

The characters are realistic, charming, engaging and full of life. Like kids in a dorm, they have all kinds of misadventures, heartbreak, live-in mishaps. And all the things that can and will go wrong in relationships, finding oneself, fitting in. Without giving away too much, the story is about a group of friends (similar to the series Friends) living together. They are funny, romantic, lost (let's not forget that one) enraged, happy, and totally devoted to each other. I enjoyed it. The audience burst out laughing throughout the screening!

Master and Student We meet a music student. He has an intelligent face and is a talented drummer. His demeanour and expression are less advanced: awkward would be a better description here. The Master noticed. A brief conversation between them in the corridor and the Master knows what makes this particular student tick. He expects all his students to bare their souls. Time to throw chairs. A multi-level battle for mastery begins; Master versus student, student versus student, student versus himself, versus his expression, all expressed through music.

This is not an adventure movie; it is not a high tech FX galactic battle. But there is a battle, there is tension, and lots of it: when it's time to perform; time to plunge in; to hit the right notes; to suffer the blisters and play till you bleed. Metaphors abound: losing your head; give them enough rope to hang themselves; being left hanging; off with their heads. Decapitation comes in many forms.

This movie grabbed me from the start. I identified with the characters. They go through the paces of finding one's place, making sacrifices, perfecting oneself in whatever endeavor we choose in life. It is a backdrop, a reference point, a moment in time we all live, as we strive to excel and express within our chosen adventure. Dare to be great.' This movie certainly is.

During my flight to Europe, I scanned the on-board movie selections. The trailer for this movie looked promising. The premise was good; the story of a kidnapping; various relationship entanglements, etc. The movie began well enough, but quickly descended into what seemed more like a 1960's time capsule (read slide show) than a movie: with big 1960's style hair, and 'peace' and 'brother' repeated often. The voice over by the narrator would kick in just as we were beginning to gasp for a storyline!

The movie has more hair than substance. Reese Witherspoon's first appearance in a Faye Dunaway hairstyle from Thomas Crown Affair. Joaquin Phoenix and his hair (facial and head) flip-flop between looking like the Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and John Lennon. But none of this adds to the entertainment; instead it detracts and distracts from it. 'Get on with it, already' I found myself saying. The movie lost track of its initial purpose. It made the flight seem that much longer. So I watched something else.

I loved this movie when it came out and I recently viewed it on DVD and laughed all over again. Each actor is excellent in his role. Bill Nighy still stands out. And to see Martin Freeman (the Hobbit, Sherlock's Dr. Watson) in an early role is delightful. I was so impressed with the younger actors too. They have certainly matured in the last 12 years. ONE DISAPPOINTING FACT: I simply adored the scenes with young Bernard (William Wadham). This little guy can ACT. He and his 'mom' Karen (Emma Thompson) cover a young man's need to fit into society, and overcome his insecurities at home and at school.But in the DVD version his scenes had been deleted. What a disappointment! Please put them back.

I was surprised at the bad reviews when I started watching the film. A lot of effort went into this production, with good acting, an interesting story line, time travel, adventure and history. The chase to save or kidnap the queen kept me glued to the screen. It was a thrilling roller coaster for about three-quarters of the film. The last quarter gave mixed messages, jumbled conclusions and added loose ends. Where was the director, did he fall asleep? the whole story hinges on an underwater discovery of a sunken British ship. What ship? Who was on it? Who drowned? The last time we saw the rings they were in the hands of the two characters in 1778 in a forest in India. How did the rings get on a ship? Not by the dead character in the forest! The last quarter of the film simply sinks the movie.