Reviews

I must admit that I found the first episode interesting, intriguing, funny. A collection of strange and unique characters that arose my curiosity to keep watching.

The second episode was not bad either, maybe the third had something in it.

After that all went down in free fall. Characters stopped making any sense, the plot moved from weird to ridiculous to laughable (not in a funny way).

All the characters introduced lost all meaning and became stuffed toys that an 8 years old child makes do pointless things.

The ending gave up even the faintest pretense of being believable or to make any sense.

I stuck to watching it till the end, hoping, naively, that there is a rhyme or reason to the whole mess.

A good number of hours that I will never get back.

I found this film quite amateurish. From the plot and premise to the interaction between characters. From the start of the film, one has to suspend one's disbelief and make allowance for many hard to swallow premises. (For instance a kid records the voice of the corner store clerk and plays it back to the officials - at school and social services - and convinces them that she lives with her uncle.) And one has to keep one's disbelief suspended for the entire duration of the film.

The dialogues are also contrived. The film tries to pull at your heart's strings - but it only makes you cringe. You feel sorry for the writer, the director and the actors who seem to be trying their best.

The fact that the British (?) dialect made half of what they were saying unclear to my Canadian ears did not help either.

(By the way, if one wishes to watch a good film about the bond between a kid and an adult, I strongly recommend the Icelandic film "Solitude" ) With apologies to my many British friends, I think British cinema should stick to dry comedy (Monty Python, Black Adder) and murder mysteries on trains/boats, and in centuries old mansions.

I gave it 4 stars rather than fewer because - as my spouse pointed out - it did not have guts and gore nor was it a pretentious nonsense like "Everything everywhere all the time".

I would start by stating what this film is NOT about. It is NOT a zombie/mutant flick where you kill them before they eat your brain. It is NOT about goodie good guys fighting the clearly evil baddies. I started this review by stating that this is not the regular fare one finds in theatres or on TV - in order to trim down the unhappy viewers who may give it a low rating.

The mutant premise is just - in my view - a means to present two main topics.

1) How do we - as individuals, as a society - treat those who are different: other sexual orientation, other religion, other life style. How do we treat people with (what we see as) challenges - mental physical, behavioural? How do we deal with people and situations that make us uncomfortable? How do we deal with those who challenge - rightfully or wrongfully - the accepted social norms. Do we also treat them "humanly" or do we throw them at the periphery of society - under lock and key preferably?

2) The heart warming (wrenching?) story of a family. How far does love for and commitment to one's spouse go when circumstances change dramatically? How does a father react when he finds out that his son is "different"? Should he convince his son to stay "in the mold" to avoid trouble with society or does he allow his son to be what he actually is deep inside?

There seems to be a third theme in there - ecological destruction - but it was less clear to me.

The acting and the special effects are also great.

Why I gave only 9 stars instead of 10? It was because the film tried to cram too much into two hours - too many ideas, too many images that one has a hard time catching and internalizing. (maybe i will watch it a second time in slow-mo.)

Reading through the other reviews for this film, I could not help but notice that different people had different takes on this movie. This is a great quality of any form of art: it makes one ponder and it is open to different interpretations.

Before I go any further with my review, a warning for people who like straightforward cut-and-dry Hollywood flicks with "good guys" and "meanies". This film is not for them.

This film makes one think what is a good intention, what is the right thing to do, what battles we need to choose, what duties we have towards society and ALL its members. The main character is trying to answer all these questions in good faith - not always with the expected results; actually, more often than not, the results are frustratingly different.

The ending of the film is surprising and open to interpretation. For me it had a pretty clear meaning - others were of a different opinion.

Like other recent remarkable cinema ("Anatomy of a fall" comes to mind) this film will make you ponder and discuss with your friends long after it is finished.

I used to have respect for Italian films in general, and Italian comedies in particular. The story is silly and forced and brings the term contrived to a new level. The acting is at the level of a drama club in middle school.

The characters are so caricatural that they even stop being funny. Not just the main characters who behave like kindergarten kids, but the people surrounding them. Just an example, one of the main characters is lactose intolerant and his mom, out of love tries to convince him to eat a lot of cheese.

A clown show in a circus may have more depth and artistic value.

It is neither comedy (we cringed more than we laughed) nor detective story (we were not intrigued to find who did what for a single moment) Typical Netflix film that does not represent the value of the cinema of a certain country (Italy in this case)

I laughed out loud for an entire hour. So did my wife. We could hardly catch our breath. Excellent writing. Great performance.

Poking fun at Icelandic people , at Brits (those were the funniest parts), at Danes, Finns, Norwegians and pretty much everything that is to poke fun at.

Ari has the humour flow freely, effortlessly. A magician of the comic situation and of the punch line.

Nothing is forced, creepy or cheesy. Does not need the yuk element, the fart jokes or embarrassing elements. Even the sex-inspired jokes come naturally and are spot on.

Other stand up comedians should watch and learn from Ari. And applaud!

One of those rare films that is so carefully thought out and thoroughly polished that one is hard pressed to find any flaws.

From Trier's story and direction to Sandra Huler's acting to the choice of music and even the clever choice of nationalities of the two halves of the couple - everything is right as it should be. Every dialogue is cleverly written and revealing. Every moment of the 2.5 hours is meaningful and leads towards painting the big picture that gradually appears.

The film avoids the "shock and awe" easy devices that plague "fast food" cinema that floods our theatres. There are no good guys or bad guys. It is a film that dissects the anatomy of a marriage that, for some reason, gradually, falls apart. The court drama is just a means towards presenting the challenges of the relation between a French brilliant - but fragile - intellectual husband and his equally intelligent - but more resilient - wife.

The ending, while bringing some sort of closure, leaves you pondering for a long time after seeing it. The final "answer" brought to me more questions that I am still thinking about.

Folks, there is intelligent life in the universe - and even in the cinema industry.

I usually enjoy Australian series. I find them clever and interesting. Not this one. When I saw the high ratings for this comedy series I thought I was in for a treat.

For the first 30 min of the first episode I found the premise intriguing and I even had some laughs. Unfortunately, it all went down from there.

I understand that, for comedic effect, one has to - occasionally - suspend one's disbelief. I am fine with that.

I also know that the absurd can be witty/funny. (eg: Eugene Ionesco) Sadly, in this series, what happens on the screen is just ridiculous, without being funny. Characters don't make sense in what they say or do. (Just one example: in a lawyer's office, a customer is asked to sit on a bean bag - a 100 years ago the three stooges had more clever attempts at humour) The whole thing has the feel of a silly story put together by a teenage kid as an assignment for his grade 8 drama class to have a good laugh with his equally silly classmates.

After having the patience of watching two episodes of this childish attempt at comedy, I gave up.

I have always had a great respect for Alexander Payne. While an American director, his films (usually) stayed away from the typical American predictable, simplistic, good guy/ bad guy stereotypes and easy solutions.

The Holdovers has an interesting premise and interesting main characters: a nerdy history teacher, a troubled student and a sad cook. The depiction of high cost private boarding schools is pretty realistic and the characters are well contoured. There are some clever dialogues and some intelligently constructed scenes. The plot keeps one engaged from one end to another of the film.

Having said that, one leaves the cinema with the nagging feeling that this was not quite what one expects from Mr. Payne. In my opinion, he "sold out" to mainstream American cinema. The bad guys are really bad; the good guys, well, God bless them. There are some "deus ex machina" solutions (a helicopter landing on campus - really?) and the eventual explanations for everything going on was quite contrived and simplistic, in the good ol' Hollywood tradition.

A good film for a Netflix evening - definitely.

Something Mr. Payne can put on his resume along "Sideways" and "About Smith" - not so much.

PS: The film is rated R. Why? Because there are a few swear words and some people smoking and drinking?

Director Hur Jin Ho takes inspiration from Dutch writer's Norman Koch's bestseller "The Dinner" and constructs a very interesting film immersed in Korean culture but very universal in scope. He uses the essential elements of the book's plot but streamlines it to make it more meaningful, more powerful. (It is not often that a film takes the plot of a book and makes it better in its screen version.)

Without sermonizing or taking sides, the films ask questions about society, justice, morality, parenthood, values, beliefs, entitlement . By testing the moral strengths of the protagonists, the film makes the audience question their own mettle in limit situations.

The imagery is strong enough, but not overwhelming to allow the viewers the personal space to make their own opinions. So is the acting - convincing, without going overboard.

After Parasite, I think this is another homerun of the Korean cinema. I would strongly recommend it for viewing in film clubs in universities - our young generation need to see it.

I have been attending the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) for many (25?) years and I always try to see a French Canadian film there. I don't remember ever being disappointed. From the earlier ones like Jesus of Montreal and the Barabarian Invasions to the more recent Antigone, The Intern, The Coyote, Une Revision or The Fall of the American Empire - French Canadian cinema has produced numerous remarkable films. (Unfortunately, many of these films are not known to the public at large. I guess, French Canadians are good at making films, not advertising them.) Ru, is no exception. A beautiful, heart warming film based on a book (that was published in 45 counties, if I remember correctly) It is the story of a family of Vietnamese refugees, but also the story of the generous Canadians that welcomed them and tried to help them adapt to a new country, a new culture.

The connection between the refugees and their "sponsors" - the latter understanding and generous, the former grateful and determined to fit in and succeed - shows, in my view exactly what Canada is all about.

The direction is masterful, the film is, in my view, flawless. (No wonder; at the Q&A after the film with the director and the producers, we were told that the film was the product of quite a few years of thoughtful preparation.) It is a film that stirred many emotions - in me and surely in other immigrants.

I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).

At TIFF, I usually look for Scandinavian films (or films by Scandinavian directors) and I am rarely disappointed. (I include Iceland in Scandinavia, here). Films for Nordic countries have a unique feel - quite original, their own humour, their own sensibility. They are often thoughtfully put together.

Well, this film felt more like a typical American action movie - not too bad, but nothing special. It had its fist fights, some sex (that I found more disgusting than arousing), and lots of money floating around and - of course - the Hollywood ending.

Don't get me wrong, I would have probably watched that on Netflix with some popcorn by my side, but, hey, that was hardly film festival material.

A bit of background about me- the person who writes this review.

I have been attending the Toronto Film Festival for about 30 years. I like "festival"-type films: the "artsy" ones, the multilayered ones, the slow ones (within limits). I admire (most of) Japanese cinema and I have seen (and enjoyed) many Japanese films.

Having said all that, this film is totally snobbish nonsense. Starting with the title (that has little to do with what is going on there), continuing with loooooong scenes where a fellow chops wood and carries water to a SUV and ending with - well - the final images - nothing has any rhyme or reason.

I was looking forward to this film as it was advertised as having an ecological theme, but, if anything, it does the ecological movement a great disservice: it portrays the ecologists (and their movement) as a bunch of weirdos.

I gave it 2 stars rather than 1 because somewhere in the film it explains where a septic tank should and should not be placed. (I learned something)

(To add insult to injury, at TIFF, the film was "presented" by a young lady who was (mis)reading form a slip of paper a text that she did not write and had no idea what it meant.)

I had to chance to see the world premiere of this film at The Toronto International Film Festival. I say "I had the chance" not just because of the bragging rights (wow! World premiere) but mostly because delightful gems like this one rarely make it to the big screens (where blockbusters with superheroes, supervillains and car chases usually make it).

The story is clever and multilayered. The simple way to look at it, the film is about an old farmer who has to sell his farm and move to the big city where he befriends an 11 years old neighbour. Going a bit deeper, one can find the difficulties facing someone accustomed to the "old (innocent? Naïve?)ways" to adapt to the "modern ways" and the impossibility of returning to what he knew and was comfortable with.

The direction is understated and spot on. The ending is brilliant (of course, not in a simplistic, Hollywood, way.) The acting - that is the interaction between the old, seemingly grumpy - but all soft inside - farmer and the 11 years old is heart warming, yet realistic.

For me, this film hit the ol' spot.

I usually reserve 10 stars for Kusturica, Koreeda, the film Parasite and such.

Such a brilliant comedy. The humour is witty and mostly well thought out. The ensemble of characters is well chosen and each of them plays an important role.

Between the humorous lines and the hearty laughs one can find so many insightful remarks about everything from raising children to the hubris of academia, to Texans - whom the writers treat lovingly , but also with some funny jabs at their religiousness, idiosyncrasies, stereotypes.

Each character has depth - with their smart and dumb moments, with their tough and vulnerable parts, with their kindness and their selfishness.

Everything is perfect!

What a funny - while subtle and sensitive film.

Under the guise of a posh wedding at a castle in France - where little goes as planned, the film takes aim at French society (in general).

Funny moments abound - from slapstick, to word play, to delightful chaos, to more subtle allusions. Knowing a thing or two about French humour, culture and society may definitely help one enjoy it even more.

Even if you don't know much about the French and their quirks, you may still enjoy the film and maybe develop a taste for their delightful tongue-in-cheek situations.

After the film ended (and I stopped laughing) I realized how multilayered and subtle the film was.

Warning: if you are into Hollywood stuff, you may NOT find this one up your alley.

One evening, I wanted to see something light and funny.

I had low expectation and I was ready to put up with silliness and to suspend my disbelief.

Did not help.

The acting was terrible - from everyone; even Arnie is a poor shadow of his earlier self.

The plot is beyond ridiculous - a five years old would find it hard to believe.

And, of course, the American nationalistic propaganda where the Americans (actually just two of them: 65 years old father and cute daughter) are saving the planet from evil, no-good, psychopathic baddies from everywhere else on the planet from UK, Europe, South and Central America. (I only watched one episode so I did not run into any Middle East baddies but I am sure they must be there, on duty, in the following episodes.) (Pity, since Americans can make good series like Breaking Bad or Better Call Saul)

I had promised myself not to watch movies made in USA anymore, but I keep breaking my promise. I wasted 2+ hours watching the wannabe- art movie about "everything everywhere etc..." . This time I was a bit smarter and after 40 minutes of this film I called it quits. Americans seem to try to make "art house" films but get it wrong every time. In this film, the story is ridiculous while the characters silly caricatures - that are not even funny, let alone believable.

Americans should stick to series like Breaking Bad or Big Bang Theory that are clever and entertaining. (And that I enjoy watching with a bag of popcorn.) Cinema as a form of art is beyond them.

First of all I am a Canadian, and I don't speak Mandarin (nor Cantonese). I saw all the great ratings and I gave it a try on Netflix. I was expecting some sort of Taiwanese "Borgen". (I don't speak Danish but I was fine with the subtitles in Borgen.) I watched the first episode of Wave Makers and I was overwhelmed by the speed at which they were talking and, in spite of my best efforts, I could not read more than half the subtitles. Then, the abundance of names - tens of them just in the first 15-20 minutes - that pretty much sounded the same to me. Then the abundance of characters that also looked very similar to me - most women, for instance - were 20-25 years old extremely "cute", similarly dressed and looked like sisters to me.

Sorry, I had to give up.

I understand that a person from Taiwan (or that area in general) may not have my problem may have enjoyed the film , but I had to share my experience.

A cookie -cutter murder mystery made for the American audiences. Some gore, some drama, an oh-so-good guy, an oh-so-corrupt policeman and, of course an oh-so-gorgeous (and brave!) girl. The evil guy is also extremely stereotypical.

Of course it is on Netflix - and the quality of films on Netflix is continuously going down.

South American cinema has so many gems, but Netfilx chooses just the ones that don't require much thinking. (As a matter of fact, low IQ seems to be a requirement for Netflix films.) I have been fooled again by high IMDB ratings and glowing reviews. Don't waste your time with this mediocre film.

For the first 1/3 of the film, the film comes across as pretty banal, slightly boring and cliché. And then it takes off. The viewer needs to realize that pretty much everything is at the level of symbol - not just about a company, but about society - and not just the Spanish one. The whole idea of balance - the factory/company was producing scales - is like a red thread in the film. The films builds intelligently towards its "conclusion" - everything falls into the place for the attentive viewer.

Every character has his/her deeper meaning that gradually comes to light clearly. Yes, the film has its (bitingly) funny moments, but it is dead serious.

Worth watching till the end, and then giving it a good thought afterwards.

Most movie goers tend to like to be entertained, watch a film with a cold beer (or pop) and a big tub of popcorn - and then forget it the next day. I don't blame them - after a long day at work, one wants to relax and only use 30% of one's brain.

These days, rarely one gets to see a film of the caliber of "Guess who's coming to dinner" or "Inherit the wind" - where one is encourage to ask questions and seek answers; to question one's values and judgments.

I would argue we need such films; the society needs us to watch such films.

Some French -Canadian films have a habit of asking and discussing tough (and important) questions. This is one of them. What do we teach our students? What is intolerance? How far do we go in following our principles and how sure are we that these principles are right? How much discretionary power do we leave to our academic mentors?

Don't look for "good guys" and "bad guys" in this film. There are only good questions and possible answers.

In my humble opinion, every intelligent person must see this film - as a civic duty.

It is a typical American movie - and any similarities with British or French whodunits are far-fetched. The "good guys" are really, really, flawlessly good. The "bad guys" are evil to the bone. And, yes, the detective know-it-all is oh-so-smart. The plot is quite predictable in terms of outcome - of course modulo some procedural details.

My grandkids like stories where they can predict an ending to their satisfaction - comfort stories. Well, this is a "comfort movie".

The movie is reasonably entertaining and, with a bag of popcorn and a glass of beer in front of the TV one can actually enjoy it.

But, as I said, it is the run-of-the-mill American cookie-cutter film.

I was so surprised it got so many "film awards" but, looking closer they are all awards at American film events - clearly a crowd pleaser for the American public.

The low IMDB average rating is misleading. Not even sure how it was calculated as it has a lot of high scores (I calculated it myself based on ratings and percentages and I got an average of 6.62 - not 5.9. About 20% of voters gave it 10/10) The reviews are also quite positive.

This film is definitely not a comedy - dark or otherwise. It has the occasional giggle and tongue-in-cheek moments but it is dead serious and dark. It is not funny, but it is intriguing and entertaining.

It has quite a few religious references. A meditation about guilt, righteousness, the emptiness of organized religion, love, redemption and everything in between.

It is worth seeing as it is well constructed. At least the first 80% of it is very well done and keeps one interested and intrigued. In my opinion the ending was rushed and somewhat confusing.

Not for Hollywood-fare consumers.

When I started watching the film I was not sure what to expect. A thriller? A comedy? Drama? Sadness? Spoof? Historical significance? Phantasy? A parable? Political commentary? Insight into the east-west divide?

Well, I found all of the above and more.

One has to watch the whole thing to make sense of the film's message. Don't be fooled by the 007 action and some of the comedic elements - the film is dead serious.

Yes, one has to suspend one's disbelief one quite a few occasions, look up some characters (inspired from real life and portrayed with a dose of artistic license), but it is worth seeing every minute of the 8 episodes. In the end you won't know whether to laugh or cry - or just ponder the meaning of the terms "good guys" and "bad guys".

If you like Hollywood fare, this one will probably disappoint you. (The "top 1000 voters" gave it an average of 5.9; the "non-US voters" gave it on average 7.5 . Enough said.)