Reviews

I had a strong suspicion as to the underlying family dynamics from the beginning which made the entire mythology much more understandable. When viewed through that lens any "unevenness in tone" makes perfect sense.

I don't want to give anything away--but see if you don't say "aha!" once you've guessed the secret. If you don't figure it out before the end--and really all of the clues are there but if you aren't familiar with psychological disorderrs don't feel bad if you miss it, think back (or watch it over again) and see if it doesn't make a difference.

The film suffered from poor editing and many of the smaller roles were poorly acted. I disagree with those who complained about the acting from the major characters--I think it was uneven dialogue and poor editing that gave that impression. These issues hurt the film a great deal, dropping my own score considerably even though I actually liked the story.

The description is wrong--this isn't an invasion, it's a revolution. You really can hear certain groups spouting the same nonsense as these "Patriots"....never mind the toll or the lack of a plan for replacement. Unfortunately none of the revolutionaries in the MOVIE were very convincing in spouting their convictions and that also hurt the film, making their justifications for what they are doing completely flat. I mean really, when you hear real people talk this way they are shouting it from the rooftops as if they louder and more certain they sound the more you will believe them. Not here.

Yes, there were other unbelievable details as well and some glaring plot holes. It was bad enough that at one point I momentarily thought it was going to turn out to be some kind of supernatural threat--you'll know it when you see it. There was also a bit of humor--though I'm not sure if it was at all (or all) intentional....Such a shame--I'd like to see this movie done again with a better script and a higher budget as I approved of their message. I imagine that it's the message that convinced the main actors to take it on. Definitely a mixed bag, but so help me despite all of it's flaws I liked it.

I enjoyed the main thread which was used to connect the myths of various American tribes, and how the stories were shared. And of course I was thrilled to see Native Americans playing each of the appropriate roles--as well as how they briefly touched on the realities of tribal life (though this aspect was quite rightly very brief, as this was not the focus of the film). I also greatly appreciated the care taken in presenting the authentic and unique garb for each of the various tribes, as well as in how their villages were depicted: Long Houses in the Pacific Northwest, mobile TeePees for the Plains, etc. It was a pleasure to see such a nice range of tribes and their myths. It was also a breath of fresh air, in that it stayed away from the usual stereotypes and tribal tropes (for the most part). I for one, would really enjoy this expanded into a whole series.

I had to mark my rating lower than I wanted to, due to poor production values and areas that didn't quite hand together as they should have given the clever way the stories were tied together--but I would rate it as a solid 7.5 rather than just a 7 (yet it wasn't quite an 8 either). I genuinely had no other quibbles.

H*L* is only offering seasons 18-27, so I can only speak to the show in that season range. So far I've watched seasons 18-20, I will update my review if necessary as I watch: While dated, it held up well enough as a police procedural. Dialogue and production values are decent enough considering it was filmed in the early 2000s. I generally like British television. The cases and the characters tend to be more "real" than the Hollywood versions, and for the most part this is true of Taggart as well---HOWEVER: My biggest gripe with the series is that the tension is artificially generated by the impulsive and often aggressive actions of apparently unstable major characters. This is just lazy writing as the cases, suspects and police sleuthing should be--and ARE interesting enough to carry the show without this added nonsense. Basically I'm just tired of this all too common characterization of any police force--American or British. It's ridiculous and frankly insulting to the viewer.

Neither cops or detectives should be shown as being justified in breaking the law to "solve" a case--or abusing suspects. The one thing THIS show did right was to make it clear that these officers do actually make mistakes when they are "sure" they know who is guilty--AND they do (mostly) suffer the consequences of their actions. That raised my score considerably.

The characters also repeatedly make the point that they have procedures for good reason, and it raises sometimes dire questions (and consequences) when those procedures aren't followed.

But--I absolutely HATE how often the major character YELLS at his subordinates. He's rude and a bully. How would a person like that ever be in a sustained leadership position? He also likes to break the rules--in a "Do as I say, not as I do" fashion--which is completely unfair and ridiculous. Again, how could someone like this keep his job????

I do like that they sometimes show the team as disliking this aspect of their boss, but all too often they wind up defending indefensible behavior. It's so unnecessary! I really, really hope that this particular character doesn't stick around--or that his character arc has him "growing" out of it.

Overall the stories are interesting and the dialogue and the acting are decent. If they cut out the neurotic and abusive nonsense by the main characters this would be a terrific show.

So, this ultra-religious couple feel that it is their holy mission to make a film condemning role playing games as the gateway drug to devil worship and demon possession. Needless to say, things do NOT quite go as planned...

Low budget but funny---a nicely framed jab at negative progaganda films and how their fervent bigotry tends to backfire. I'm reminded of the movie "Reefer Madness" and how it became a recruitment film for tokers because it was so earnest--yet blatantly ridiculous. Yes, this film (the one you are watching, not the one they are making) is also a pointed jab at certain Evangelicals and the "Prosperity Doctrine"--and how fundamentally self-centered (and often ignorant) such beliefs can be.

You can easily appreciate this movie on the face of it--unless you are offended by the message. If you ARE offended by the message, then you need to watch it again. There are more layers to this film than you may see at first glance--but you don't have to watch it for those and can still enjoy it. Script and acting are decent, nost of the characters are pretty well-- if thinly drawn, with the few full blown stereotypes feeling very deliberately done--as part of the whole point of the film. It's maybe a little slow in a few places, but yes, overall worth watching on a Saturday afternoon.

Very entertaining--relatively unknown accounts of a shocking moment from the life (or death) of one specific composer for each episode. When I say brief, I mean the longest episode is perhaps 9 minutes (they were thankfully not delayed or interrupted by ads). While the host's narrative style--Professor Dr. Robert Greenburg (a renowned composer in his own right) is a bit exaggerated, his enthusiasm and the stories are entertaining enough to carry the show.

The well-supported biographies are very entertaining--and yes, frequently shocking even by today's standards. There are sometimes detailed descriptions and sometimes graphic descriptions--often from first hand (called "Prime sources" by historians) accounts of the effects of syphlis, promiscious sex, drunkenness, prostitutes, sexual abuse of children, unrequited love, murder, torture, conspiracies, burials and post-mortem head removal (along with a grusome description of what happens to said head as quoted from the diaries of those who stole it, and more. Sometimes in their own words. All of this adds up to a much more personal--and fascinating account than what we usually find--and a lot packed into less than 10 minutes!

There are brief excepts from each composer's repertoire playing in the background, which gives a nice little taste of each subject's work--just enough to tantalize if one is interested in learning more. Also just enough to recognize the differences between each composer's style if you listen carefully, as the music plays as background to the host's narrative. There could be more photos, and there are no re-enactments, but these episodse are short enough that you can live with tjhese choices--which to be truthful, were probabluy budget driven. Given the very short length of each episode they stick with one "scandal" per show--a wise choice.

Overall, fascinating and short enough that the less than captivating presentation is tolerable. I rated it as high as I did for content, as I'd never heard many of these tidbits before--or they presented a new fact-based twist on what I had learned previously.

Yes, this really is about "Chicken People". Not scared people, or cowards, but about people who love and raise chickens. Most of the focus on this short documentary focuses on those who raise and breed chickens for show (though some do indeed find themselves on the dinner menu after a time) and competition, hoping--just like people who breed and show cats or dogs, hoping to win not only "Best in Breed" but "Best in Show". It's interesting to see the variety of breeds involved and (superficially) the techniques these breeders use to bring out their desired characteristics.

Filled with interviews, the film affectionately follows these self-acknowldged "Chicken People" as they care for--feed, bathe and even groom their chickens and prepare for competition. Some treat their chickens like members of the family--like true pets, while others love them but keep them as barn fowl. There is a sense of self-depecrating humor thorughout the interviews as these people seeem to be self-aware enough to recognize that their love--even self-described "obsession" of chickens is seen as a bit unusual. Still, they smile and never apologize for how they feel.

This is not the most lively of documentaries, nor the most scintillating or instructive. To me it spend just a little too much time on the breeder's outside interests (in a dicumentary this short it matters). However, if you are an animal lover, or a breeder of any sort, or even just curious about chickens, you should enjoy it. It also can servie as a breif introduction to the world of chicken breeding and competition.

An all too brief review of the history of women in Jazz, from the begginnings of the 1900s through modern day female musicians. These women had to face discrimination and diminished expectations from multiple fronts--particularly if they were African American, but nothing could keep them from doing what they loved--and many of the women were--and are, as good as or even better than the stars of thier day. Even though they often did not receive the credit they were due--privately, let alone publicly--for thier playing, their writing and arrangements, nothing could stop them. amd thier joy at making music still shines through.

Filled with interviews, timely photos and film clips, this movie is a wonderful trip through time, and a reminder that while we've come a "Long way baby", a woman's journey towards full acceptance as an equal member of the human race is far from over. Overall well done. Would have enjoyed more time with the music, and more film clips of the performances, but I've few complaints. The pace was good, the hsitory memorable, and the women are just plain incredible. Recommended!

I only watched part of the first episode, and it looked interesting and entertaining as well as thought-provoking. Unfortunately---while I don't always avoid subtitles, I frequently do--especially with a series, only because in general I am doing something else while watching a tv show. You cannot follow a show like this AND read subtitles, AND surf the net, AND read your email, or draw or sew or do anything else. I am well aware that all too frequently the voice actors fail to fully convey the subltelies of voice that the original actors do--and this often results in a less than stellar experience for the audience, but if it is a choice between watching dubbed or not watching at all--particularly with a quality show, I'd much rather watch dubbed.

What a shame. I do believe I would have really liked it. Please bring it back as either dubbed or in an English version. Thanks!

BORING. While I enjoyed hearing about his interesting childhood, and he seems like a creative and nice person to know; I wanted to see more of his creative process. Not name dropping. They didn't even bother to label most of the people who appeared with their gushing testimonials after their first appearance--and if you blinked you missed it, apparently assuming we would all know who they were and where they fit in the fashion world. This was less a documentary about his shoes--or even him, and all too much about the people who know him--and wear his shoes. Given his lengthy career surely they could have discussed how he became so famous--how did he connect with so many well-known fashion designers early in his career?

The basic problem was that like most "celebrities", they can only talk about themselves and not the person they are supposed to be talking about. The only person I remember who actually shared stories about Mnalo himself was Anna Wintour, and her interview was the most interesting. If there was indeed more substance to this biography, it was overwhelmed by the self-congratulatory "here I am"! tone of most of the interviews, in which it was obvious that they were only there for their own moment on camera, not to celebrate the man they were there to actually talk about.

Overall the best part of the documentary was the clever animation. To put it bluntly this could have been far more interesting. While there was a segment showing him hands on in the factory, I for one would have liked to see more of this aspect of his business and process. This is a man who has spent most of his very successful career creating clever shoes (and honestly some are down-right ugly craft project worthy--juxtaposed with some genuinely beautiful and unique) for the wealthy. Why not at least show case the shoes? (I mean so you could actually see them)

An intriguing and fairly new take on the ghost story--I adored the quirky winding sheet. The acting was great (dialog is minimal), and the cinematography well done. The director also did a good job of setting an appropriate melancholy atmosphere, with a few unexpected jolts tossed in for a change of pace. And a change of pace was sorely needed.

For those who may be confused, this is NOT a horror story, and it's definitely not an action film. This is your basic haunting on simmer instead of the usual cinematic boil, in which ghosts stick around due to unfinished "business". Compounding their tragedy is the ghost's inability to speak or interact directly with the living--which it may be said, our ghost may have struggled with while still alive. Though married, he is presented as a self-absorbed musician who seems to take his loving wife for granted (avoiding the usual cliches) though it is apparent that they do love each other--and this is likely the key point clarifying just what the film is trying to say. We only glimpse a few scenes of their lives together--and even fewer scenes of him while alive, so I admit this may be a leap on my part, but it is one of the things that struck me during those scenes--and given the ending, well......

It's a story much more about human relationships and loneliness and connections than it is about anything inherently "supernatural"- I would argue it's far more existential. In fact---If you view the film in that light it becomes a much more interesting film. Certainly there are enough hints throughout the movie to suggest that this is in fact the real premise. This story is not just exploring a standard "haunting"; especially as it plays with linear time, and his ultimate motive for denying his wife's desire to move from that house: Her "Why do you want to stay?" Him "History".

There is no attempt to provide all of the answers, and the one (unecessarily) lengthy exposition doesn't really help--though it may have been included to lead the audience to a more existential state of mind. In fact it may be that the inclusion of this erroneous speech may be there to emphasize what we don't know and ultimately can't answer. But hey, maybe I'm reading too much into this.

A very low budget film (only $100,000!), it could have benefited from judicious editing. Given the complaints (and I agree) of too many scenes dragging on too long with no action, and with seemingly no point in doing so, the editor could easily have cut say 15 minutes off (or more) without the audience missing much of anything (even if my assertion in the previous paragraph is correct). The length of these slow scenes did not add to the emotional ambience or impact--or even in the telling of the story at all, and hurt the film a great deal. They were just irritating--and I genuinely liked the movie. In fact this is the only reason my score is as low as it is--and that's still a "6"--maybe a "7". I'd compromise with a "6.5" if that was possible. To put it bluntly, these lengthy uncut--and in at least one scene, seemingly static scene turned off many viewers, and is the number one complaint. Even many of us who liked the film otherwise didn't care for their inclusion and knocked down our scores. I disagree that they added anything as far as allowing the viewer to empathize or "feel" the character's state of mind. That could have easily been done in a myriad of other less irritating ways. They ultimately felt like ill-considered filler, and affected how many people felt about the movie overall.

It's a shame, as I felt there was more they could have done to tell the story better--given this is a story about the human connection I am puzzled as to why they didn't show more of those interactions--their impact on him, especially after he was a ghost. The transitions from seemingly incapable of doing more than just observe to....well, no spoilers here, but they were simply out of the blue. The few flashbacks didn't help enough, though I can certainly see what the director was going for.

To be fair, it would be difficult for any actor to demonstrate much acting or emotion when completely hidden under a sheet-- successfully enabling this connection--this empathy between audience and ghost is a credit to everyone involved in this project. Again though, those too-lengthy "breaks" in the story hurt that connection. The pacing was a huge problem with both too much and too little to allow many in the audience to see and feel what the film-makers desired in what would have otherwise been a successfully engaging experience.

To put it another way, in many ways this was an intriguing story but there were missed opportunities that would and could have expanded our emotional investment into the state of being of our titular ghost, and of how he felt as he haunted his house-which would have greatly improved the film and the audience's appreciation.

Again, no spoilers, but the moments up to the final scene were another interesting angle that could possibly have been expanded.

Recommended if you can welcome (endure?) a slow developing and thoughtful existential take on hauntings.

Very well done episode on the destruction, rediscovery, and race to preserve the amazing discoveries of Herculaneum. When buried by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, it preserved a remarkably advanced way of life in ancient times-- leaving behind the elements of daily living and technologies preserved in such a unique way that even wooden furniture and organics--like a loaf of bread fresh from the oven, were saved in remarkable condition. This is an archeologist's dream--one that overshadows even Pompeii.

I loved this movie, for all of the reasons others have praised it--and I don't feel the need to repeat the plot points or "all of those reasons" here. Yet almost everyone seems to have missed the point of the ending--and yes, there IS a point. It is NOT ambigious in the least. I won't give anything away here except will say that if you have paid attention--to the story, to the characters, to their motives, you will indeed "get it". No it doesn't give you "happily ever after" finite, "the end", but it does provide an end to the story they were telling--and the rest of what comes after isn't part of that story.

This is a wonderful documentary, exemplying the extraordinary amount of work it takes to put on such a dazzling complicated production, especially when relying on so many, so very young dancers. The little ones are adorable and obviously enjoying themselves, yet work just as hard and are as determined to do well as the older students. Even 5 year olds recognize the value of hard work and the benefits of trying again and again to improve, while knowing they will likely never achieve "perfection" (a very important point emphasized throughout the documentary). As one father explains, dancers learn the value of failure and that's an excellent thing to learn for anyone's long term success, whether they stay in dance or not.

The film also gives well-earned credit to the dedicated parents who donate thousands of hours to aiding their children in achieving their dreams and to the success of the production--even to the point of coming in from China to allow their child to participate, or taking leave from work in order to be there. And of course, that's not counting the amount of time (and money!) they spend schlepping these students back and forth from classes, rehearsals and everything else that goes along with becoming and being a dancer. Some of the parents were even roped into appearing on stage--much to thier chagrin and in some cases, embarrassment, but just like the children, they soldiered on--giving their all to support their children and the production and the school, alike. One father expresses it as uncomfortable (as well as unexpected) to be on stage yet chose to view it as an opportunity for him to participate with and spend time with his daughter in a way he may never have again, something he obviously treasures given he literally took extended time off work in order to do so.

The love and caring from these parents for their children is front and center--no selfishly neurotic stage parents here. Even the children who originally disliked dance (the parents were teachers after careers as professional dancers--or they were sitting around while sisters took classes) weren't forced to dance, their desires were allowed to grow naturally. You won't see parents yelling or pushing their kids here! Yet despite all of the time, pain, injuries and hard work, their excitement is palpable--parents and children alike. Make no mistake, supporting a child who is serious about any endeavor--dance, sports or chess, takes effort and resources (not every parent is equipped or able to provide). I loved the relationships--wheter between parent and child, child and troupe, or teachers to students, as they were depicted here, they were truly inspiring.

One reviewer was complaining about the lack of "credit" for these fine young dancers (400? of them?!?), yet each dancer interviewed was in fact identified by first name. It is important to remember that all of these dancers are minors--and in fact children; some of the principle dancers are as young as 13! with some of the corps dancers as young as 5 (it appeared there were some children participating who were likely even younger). This is a school not a professional troupe, and as such they have a rsponsibiltiy for protecting the privacy of thier students--despite participating in such a public endeavor. Providing last names could open up an entire can of worms these children and their families might not be able to deal with. That said, all of the PRINCIPLE dancers ARE given full credit (last names included) at the end of the movie in the usual place--so if you wish to follow their careers you may look them up. The end of the film also lists scholarships and the professional opportunities that opened up for individual students as a result of their performances. These are talented kids!

Of course NONE of this would be possible without the efforts and commitment of the instructors--particularly the head of the school, Marat Maratovich. What a wonderful ad for the school! I hope they gained a great deal of funding from this documentary's depiction of their methods. As it is, it's pretty obvious that they struggle under financial limitations---tutus for their performances are donated, and much of the back stage work is donated by parents. Unlike the Russian tradition in which he was schooled, students here are not abused or pushed beyond reasonable limits. It's obvious that he respects his students-and their parents, and that this is in turn reciprocated.

This is truly a wonderful school and a terrific documentary showing the backstage workings of a well-known traditional production. Smiles, hugs and tears of joy and sadness that it's all over abound at the end.

Complex characters, engaging story arc and beautiful cinematography. I am not particularly a fan of Westerns, but this show was so well done that I binge watched to the end in one sitting. One of the things that made it so good was that they managed to avoid the usual tropes and stereotypes--a very original take on the western, while exalting and staying true to the spirit of the genre that has made it so attractive to so many over the years of cinema.

This show glorifies the sense of adventure, opportunity and determination that allowed the people, the industries and towns of the West to prosper--despite the (frequent, often deep-seated) corruption and risk. The West was not lawless, but as this show demonstrates, the "law" was not always there when needed, nor necessarily willing or able to uphold the laws that existed--particularly in the days before statehood, necessitating a form of callous ruthlessness by indigenous peoples, the settlers and settled alike that we abhor in society today. But it was truly the individual characters that made the show so successful--no one was completely good or pure, even the main villain of the series wasn't totally evil-as tempting as it must have been to paint him that way. The inconsistencies in characters' actions are quite human and consistent with the character's personalities and histories. Over the course of the series we see each character grow and change--for better OR worse, as they should in all great tales.

Some have lamented or scorned the form of violence shown in the series, but many of the incidents reported or enacted did actually occur--though perhaps not exactly as depicted. A small historical fact: Blackdom actually existed--though again, fictional liberties were taken. It IS after all, a fictional story, albeit a well-grounded one.

My only tiny little quibble is that some of the flashbacks were a little jarring, albeit essential background, and they did little to spoil the over all telling of the story. HIGHLY recommended.

I am a very forgiving reviewer--I can usually find something to like about a film. In this case the only reason it gets 3 points at all is due to the premise, but as far as the plot, the characters, the dialogue--and as another reviewer puts it, the execution, it is a genuine stinker.

None of the characters are likable, not even the robot or the kids. I have no issue at all about sexbots, nor do I have a problem with evolving AI--especially as they are likely a near reality, but the WAY in which this story was told was just terrible! As is often the case, the kids are too precocious, but even given that, they simply aren't believable--in their actions, their dialogue or their acting. I mean usually, the writers at least make the main kids likable or endearing in some way. In this movie, the one "nice" lead, is just too, too much to be believable, and the whole religious spiel in the middle of the film as a plot device? Ugh. To be fair, I can't decide if it's the acting that is off, or the directing--as if that ultimately matters in a film this bad (I can forgive either one if other elements make up for it) but the dialoge and development sure don't help. All of the other characters are pure (and poorly done) stereotypical caricature. The entire thing reads as a throwaway script in some slush pile.

Now it's obvious that this film is aimed at young pubescent boys, but I doubt even that demographic would enjoy this film. There isn't enough substance--or visual candy in here to be even mildly titillating. This movie offers absolutely nothing to the audience. My recommendation is to just pass this one by--pubescent boy or not-- cause if you ARE a pubescent boy you will be sorely disappointed.

Great characters, intriguing and riveting story lines, excellent and believable acting. Obviously I am a huge fan of the show, and am sorry to see it go. In fact I delayed watching the last two episodes for months because I didn't want to see it end! Fact is, I kind of wish I had skipped the last two after all though I will not succumb to giving it away for those who have not. Truthfully, for all of the ups and downs in the show, it seems very realistic and accurate as far as portraying the vagaries and hypocrisies of the day. The values of justice and mercy were quite different from what we currently hold; and the role of science--prominent in today's crime solving efforts, was at the time often viewed with suspicion or derision.

Policing of any sort was quite new in the time depicted (and in fact had been completely illegal! out of fear of rebellion as had occurred in France), which explains some of the (realistic) inconsistencies in policing practice. While the issues of poverty, race (or "Englishness") and class continued to exert undue influence on the whims of official law and order--as it did in broader Victorian society. Most police were encouraged to use fist and night stick in order to maintain order--and to coerce confessions (torture to obtain confessions--true or not was standard practice, especially if undertaken to protect someone powerful), whether their unfortunate suspect was guilty of anything (other than being poor) or not--and the show reflects this ugly truth (if not to the degree such actions were actually carried out). In this regard the show quite vividly exposed this ugly truth of the time. Men like Drake were the rule not the exception.

Fortunately for us today, and as depicted in the series, it was the efforts of investigative journalists who exposed this ugly underbellly to the light of day and called it out for what it was--especially when the "guilty" were found to be innocent, or when punishments didn't fit the "crimes"--or when crimes against the forgotten were ignored by authorities. Journalists have indeed been the instruments of change and have brought even the powerful to justice, often at great risk--even in today's fast paced world of the internet journalist.

In addition, activists like Edmund Reid (though fictional, is a reflection of those who did indeed agitate for change). People like him were very much responsible for major changes in police conduct and procedure, and for the rise of the scientific method in investigation, from the inside out--despite entrenched resistance from the system itself. Interestingly, the fictional character of Sherlock Holmes was actually inspired by a real London Detective--who could have been the inspiration for our beloved Reid, while the character Holmes, helped popularize the whole idea of a methodical (and fair) system of investigation and justice--in much the same way that shows like CSI have popularized the idea of forensic proof in solving today's crimes and in the trials of suspects themselves.

It is both the beauty and horror of Victorian England, it was these injustices exposed--crimes even by the "great and good" that allowed us to grow and change as a society--to seek a kinder, gentler and hopeuflly fairer world. Children are no longer forced into dangerous factory work for 14 hour days but allowed free education for all; being poor does not automatically brand one a ruffian, ignorant or stupid; being born to wealth does not bring the perception of inherent superiority (or good breeding); being a woman does not mean being frail or feeble or require the ownership of a man; being poor does not equal starvation or the work house; being disabled no longer means begging or dying on the street. Being wealthy does not mean being clean or clear of the ugliness of brutality, prejudice or free from the risk of sudden ruin (which I believe was in fact the cause of many of the brutalities of the day--fear that they would lose it all and wind up in the gutter--which could all too easily happen with one bad investment). Fear that they wouldn't and couldn't live up to expectations. Victorain society--for all of it's strengths, was also a cruel and rigid caste society. Increasing social and economic mobility, frightened the hell out of them, and nothing represented this more than Americans who practically defined such change. This accurate depictions of a society experiencing major growth pains (and the fear this engenders), is a major strength of the show.

One of the other strengths of the series, is just how clearly it portrays the motives and factors that lead to the varied actions of these beloved (or hated!) characters--without needless exposition; for all of their good intentions or their faults, their failings are all too believable. It is clear that for most, they are driven by the circumstances of their time, and many are not of those circumstances are not of their own making. More than a crime show, this is a social commentary--and a very good one at that.

Loved it! They certainly could have easily had a season 2, I'm very disappointed that it's been cancelled. I really liked the unique take on the usual ghost story and the idea that there are places in which the veil is thin between the living and the dead and where time seems to play tricks. Good story, great acting and lovely setting, this show kept me engaged from start to finish. Very sorry not to see it coming back for part 2.

While I don't want to throw out any spoilers, I will say that it seems as if a season 2 was planned, and that in anticipation of that unfulfilled promise the neatly wrapped up story line was done a disservice at the very end. You'll see what I mean. Even so, the tacked on secondary ending does nothing to detract from the rest of the season--just ignore it like a burp at the end of a good meal. That said, I do highly recommend the show, especially if you like Gothic mysteries.

I actually like musicals, but this one just didn't quite work for me. I am a huge Topher Grace fan, and I liked the rest of the cast--it wasn't their fault. The cast delivered what was asked of them. It was a grin hearing all of the "one-hit wonders" again, but some of the arrangements didn't do the music justice--especially for a musical based on popular and well known songs. Of course the story line had all of the usual musical ingredients--love story, boy loses girl, etc. etc. with some fine dancing thrown in. I really should have enjoyed the film much more than I did.

I believe the fault was in the way the story was told--there was simply too much of the "poor me" aspect, and not enough of the rallying, let alone the come back. It's like they emphasized the wrong part of the movie, or else rushed the ending to wrap it up before the story was fully told. It left an empty space where character development/growth should have gone. The uplifting ending was just too abrupt. If it was a song, it would be a three note lullaby.

If you like musicals you should like this. If you don't care about character development, especially in a musical--then you'll like this. It just didn't quite hit the mark for me. Could have been much better with a little more development. It wasn't terrible, or even bad, just- -forgive me, flat and a little "pitchy".

I enjoyed this series, but as mentioned by other reviewers, it really would have been better if it had been presented as one 2 hour movie, or even divided into 2 or 3 episodes. Chopping it up into 14 minute episodes made the film story drag much slower than it would have otherwise. That said, my review of the film itself is positive.

The story's ghost was presented in a different way than usually seen in this type of film, and I much preferred this straightforward conversation over the overly strained mystery usually delved into; the mystery of her death and who killed her and why was enough of a mystery without adding to it. It was also perfectly logical that the ghost would seek out a professional detective who was able to see her over an untrained outsider (as so many do)--it helped avoid the whole "I can't believe it" trope, or the old "you're crazy!" stereotype. THe detective may be crazy (and that question is never fully addressed, wink wink), but he's good at what he does. and this actually helps the story not only move forward but keep it fresh.

The acting was decent, though if I remember correctly some of the minor characters were less consistently committed. Facts were presented as the detective learned them, with nothing set forward to deliberately fool or confuse the audience (I like that in a mystery) yet there was indeed a mystery. The solution when exposed makes perfect sense in retrospect. Overall, while not an Oscar winner, it was worth watching--though as I said previously, it would have been better as one full movie or a mini-series rather than such short episodes. I don't know if this was initially a web series, but from the description it appears that they plan on additional seasons. Given this season dates from 2017 there may very well be more to come. I for one look forward to it, but I do hope they read these reviews and take them to heart.

I had to laugh when previewing my review, given all of the criticisms I've listed, you would think I didn't actually LIKE this film, but I did. This is NOT the worst movie ever, not at all, but you have to bear with me (and with the movie) to get to the "good" parts. If you are that kind of movie-watcher, you can enjoy this film, if not well...then take a pass. Not sure? If you can read through my list of complaints all the way down to the POSITIVE points, then you could very well enjoy this film as well as I did.

While admittedly a mixed bag: special effects are cheap--something you might have seen in the 80's! On top of that, the editing is sometimes jarring or even just bizarre- - particularly as it spends far too much time focusing on those same distressingly undeveloped effects. It's obviously an extremely low budget film, and this editing choice makes that much more obvious. One of the other things that really hurts the film from the very start is the extremely loooooooooong voice over introduction which sets the setting for the story (and they don't even bother with their cheap special effects while they do it--other than an awful (particularly irritating) electronic voice modulator. Jeez! Show, don't tell! It really spoils the movie (and sets it up for failure) by boring the audience before the story even gets started. If absolutely necessary (given budget restraints) it certainly could have been edited to it's most salient points.

If you don't care about the back story then just fast-forward through that part, I don't think it will hurt the movie that much if you do, but it will dump you into the middle of a conflict that might not make much sense--just trust me, there is a reason for what they do, even if (a big if!) it is supposed to make sense within the context of the history they set up for the story.

Frankly as far as I was concerned, this didn't really help the plot anyway, so I'd just skip it. After all, wars are seemingly a part of human nature, so it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to assume even altered humans (supposedly "advanced" humans) would continue to stir up (or even thrive on) conflict and even enslavement. Just depends on if you can enjoy the story without context. Most of what happens will make sense without the history, though parts at the end might not without context. Since I DID watch the intro, I can't really tell you, though I think there are enough hints scattered through the story to help. Fair warning.

The creature/alien human costume(s) (if you can call it that) was just bizarre and out of place for a supposedly advanced form of human. It didn't make sense. Fortunately there are few of those, and the rest of the costuming didn't stand out--which in this case is a good thing. The sets also didn't stand out--but seemed logical for the time and place. Props: I had to laugh at the use of one of their big assed guns as the actress waved it around as if it was made out of plastic and weighed nothing. You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it. Not likely, even in the future. Fortunately there are few moments like these, and again, they don't particularly stand out-- which in this case is a compliment.

The music however, DID stand out, and not in a good way; it didn't help at all (especially when combined with the poor editing, overly long intro, and the other problems I've mentioned). The music was jarring yet boringly generic--not particularly loud, just inappropriate-- or even too sacchrine for the moment. It just didn't fit and by taking your attention away from the film made the other problems just that more obvious.

On the other hand, While the overall plot wasn't particularly original, and the acting was sometimes hit and miss (I think it was more a failure of editing and direction than of the actors--mostly editing); the dialogue (forget the intro) and the main actors interjected appropriate nuance to their (almost) fully-fleshed characters (not the usual cardboard cut-out stereotypes which was a nice change-- especially for such a low budget film), and were pretty decent (if not Oscar material). While the overall plot wasn't particularly original,the characters were recognizable without being generic. Parts of the dialogue certainly raised the caliber of the film above the norm, and the characterizations (including the hints of backstory) made them interesting and relatable. Most of all I liked the interaction between the characters and their actions were consistent within the storyline, without being generically predictable. It's the characters and how the actors played them that saved this film.

Overall I enjoyed the movie, even with it's flaws. Definitely NOT the worst movie ever--it's certainly not a "must see", but not as bad as some of the reviewers suggest. Believe me, I"ve seen FAR worse. Take it for what it is and you can enjoy it.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. The storyline and the music brought back fine memories (I was almost the same age in the same time period--and oh how the music took me back). In this the script was VERY successful in conjuring a specific time and place.

Although I was in the United States rather than Wales, I would have to say our general teen experiences of the times were pretty similar on both sides of the Atlantic. We certainly experienced that same raging uncertainty of being a teen of any time period, but ours was greatly amped up by the extraordinary social upheaval of the 60s and 70s, which could only serve to exacerbate the general fear of what comes next in anyone's teens. This anxiety would be even more potent in a region with rampant unemployment and open class warfare (not to mention the ongoing clash in Ireland of the time).

The excellent use of music in this film brought out qualities in the songs that were lost when streamed out on the radio waves among the popular playlist of the day, and certainly threw them into a new light, with nuances I'd never before considered. Very effective and in some places, positively poignant. I thought the choices of music were excellent; so much so that I could have easily enjoyed much more of it and more of the film in turn, just on that alone.

To be truthful, the movie really could have used another half hour or more, just to flesh out the more important characters. There were some interesting people here, but the length of the film gave them-- and in truth the storyline, short shrift. While that could have been addressed by reducing the number of main characters or focusing less on the more extraneous of the story lines, I don't know if I would have in fact enjoyed the film more by doing so. I would have like more of everything to be truthful; more exploration of the characters and their relationships that we were exposed to; more of the film's interpretation of the music put through the lens of of hindsight; and more development and rehearsals of their play--when juxtaposed and compared with the daily lives of the film.

Certainly not everyone will agree with me, but it was a terrific little film--and I'd like to see more of it. Just more. Not the Hollywood treatment, no, that would alter it's character too much I fear, but just more of what we were given all too briefly. Yes I admit, I may be biased by my own familiarity and nostalgia of the times, but I am not going to apologize for that. I simply Loved it. Loved it. Loved it.

Oh for.... they wouldn't allow me to capitalize that I "love it". L.O.V.E.D. I.T. I don't understand how anyone can consider this shouting for god's sakes, it's only a voice in your own head powered by your own imagination. No one is shouting! If anything that exclamation point conveys shouting more than capitalizing an entire word. Capitalizing only emphasizes the word or words. Emphasis, not shouting. I would italicize it but that doesn't W.O.R.K. on IMDb's website. If you italicize or even bold letter a word it just comes out with ampersands and all kinds of mixed symbols--but no italics or bold letters. If they fixed that then I wouldn't be tempted to S.H.O.U.T.! Moderators? Do you read these?????