Reviews

I mean really people are complaining about the nudity, or about the fictionalization? The problem my friends is with the acting. All the main characters are portrayed not by mediocre actors, but very very bad actors. It is completely unwatchable

Great, only survivors are morons who wouldn't last a day without their FIJI water. This show has become devoid of logic and a once great cast now a cast that is a group of idiots far from where the action is.

Why is Pits wearing sergeant stripes when at the time he was an airman? Why are the weapons wrong. Why are combat soldiers yelling in the jungle before combat starts when the enemy almost certainly would be nearby? What on earth is this "Friendly Fire" narrative, which has been debunked by several military historians? Where are they getting a "coverup" when there was none? If it was a coverup why did he receive second highest award back in 1966?

Dramatic license is one thing, but just making it up as you go along and exploiting a hero to make money, without care for facts, is another thing. The makers of this film demonstrate total lack of knowledge of the military honors and decorations process. There are literally hundreds of amazing heroic stories where people have gotten Bronze Star, Oak Cluster, Silver Star, Navy Cross, DSC without getting Medal of Honor, when, if you read their story, you'd be thinking -- my god give this person a MOH. It is not a conspiracy. Sure you get people like John Kerry who get purple Hearts for torn fingernail. If the makers of this film had know anything of the process they would also know posthumous promotions are the general rule and that the Sargent strips on him are an egregious error demonstrating lack of knowledge and lack of care.

Wow Great! But why all the fake reviews? Is that needed? Poor audience reception?

First of all for those whining about the portrayal of the deeply unethical Kathy Scruggs, who was so ashamed at being outed for sleeping her way and being used by the FBI that she killed herself with a drug overdose. For anyone doubting what Scruggs was doing for the story, read the Vanity Fair piece from several years ago, it is clear she used tawdry methods. It is so ironic that the news media has spent more time defending use of sexual favors for stories than it ever spent apologizing for slandering Richard Jewell.

The fact is this is a compelling true to life story. Very little dramatization is needed considering the real, systematic, abuses by the FBI and the media. and this is just an example we know about. Clint Eastwood, in his always laconic and effective style simply presents the reality and the result is a stunning film.

It isn't a question of how flashy the sci fi is, it is a question of how interesting and challenge it is. Proxima is neither. In fact it is so didactic as to be insulting to the audience and seems to assume the audience are dullards that need repetition.

Some uninformed people here are saying the film is revision in terms of the pieces put together to find bin Laden's location. It isn't revision. Several of the most important piece of information and even more corroborating information were a direct result of intelligence gained from a terrorist who was subject to enhanced interrogation. Claim otherwise in 100% partisan "Report" are bogus. Just google: "Osama bin Laden killed: CIA admits waterboarding yielded vital intelligence. also confirming this John Brennan and Obama's DNI, James Clapper. This film's only issue with accuracy is in combining several (mostly women) intelligence analysts specializing in Bin Laden hunt for one composite character, which is not a material problem and is common in film. It is great film.

I worked on the Hill for eight years for a centrist Democrat Representative from the north East. Literally everything about this film is nonsense, both in detail and in larger picture.

Firstly the NRA strength is not money. It is outspent by Bloomberg's groups 8:1. The fact that the other side on this issue has budgets to spent on politicking, electioneering, over eight times more than the "bad guys" makes the entire narrative inverted from the facts. It is ability of NRA to get hundreds and hundreds of your actual constituents calling, or coming in to meet with a legislator, when the gun control groups may only be able to bring in a half dozen of your actual constituents.

Secondly you could watch all of Mrs Sloan and not once hear the simple fact that in the past 25 years US gun homicide rate has fallen in half. Or that 92% of all US counties have the same murder rate as the European average, it is precisely 38 counties (out of 3,000 US counties) that constitute the entire elevation in US murder rates over international averages.

This film was not a box office flop because of politics of second Amendment advocates, but because of the distortions of the heavily moneyed Bloomberg side.

I have yet to see a series that went from such promise to such utter garbage.

Our once great Vikings has declined profoundly in quality for several seasons now, as the writers infantilize or insult the viewers more and more with mindless-writing; and as the series moves to announced cancelation. And who can be suprised that the announced sequel will have a different writing team given how insulting the writing has been, driving away viewers in droves? Have the writers decided that they will develop Hvitserk realistically by themselves writing the episodes in a stupor or is it just laziness?

FYI, Episode Five of Season Six was released by History Channel Wednesday, not today (Thursday) . Yet every week the same numbskull complains people are reviewing/rating early, without having viewed it, when we saw it on Wednesday.

What a mess. Not dramatic, not funny, not interesting. In fact it looks like more energy and talent was put into attempting to shill ratings of this dog up than the talent put into writing it.

After patiently sitting though this rather tedious film, I guess I am trying to figure out what the actual theme was. Mass murder has actually decreased worldwide and in the USA, not increased.

I have seen the two writers discuss this film. It is interesting, each is from an area opproessed by the central govnrnment in Spain, one from Catalonia, wherre there is a populare indpendence/autonomy movement; and one from Bilbao in Basque country controlled by Spain.

I think their perspective/parable on oppressive government and "the powers that be" at the top government levels, out 'betters" in central and ever oppressive and controlling government, deciding who gets what in "the Platform" dystopia is quite well done.

I had read that the AMC was sick of the inept story lines of Angela Kang, and the result of season nine saw the largest hemorrhage of viewers. It is clear her unbearably boring "vision" is being sidelined and this was one of the better episodes returning to earlier season's themes.

Let's face facts. Season nine was the most appallingly bad and laughable season ever, and as a direct result of audiences running away in the season nine botch, season ten kicked off with the LOWEST viewership premier EVER for TWD and viewership of episodes two and three fell to all time lows as well.

The people who are genuine fans of the show are the ones who have been giving season nine and ten episodes its low ratings. We ARE fans of this show which has lost its way completely. The people who are giving it "10" ratings are just extreme fanboys who are blind to, and in denial of the major problems everyone, including the broad audience of longtime fans that has fallen 25% just this year, are warning about. in fact roamersandlurkers walkingdeadforums thespoilingdeadfans readership is down 40% compared to this point in season nine. Yes, down 40% in less than a year as the result of one mess of a season ands signs of repeating the mess.

The leadership of both the protagonists and the antagonists is now laughable. who would have thought that all the fans would be now nostalgic about Negan. In season nine the guns disappeared. The choice of weapons against threatening humans, eg avoiding guns in conflict with humans and axing their heads instead, makes NO sense. LOL, where the fk are the guns? One person with a gun wins against a sword, spear and bow group in this no rule of law world! Why doesn't any of the protagonists just shoot Alpha? Given the extreme hierarchical structure of the whisperers, it would end their threat. It is just mind numbingly dumb now and the disappearance of firearms is moronic.

I like dark comedy. But there is a difference between dark comedy and just nastiness and Art of Self Defense devolves into just plain nastiness fairly early in the film.

Essentially this is film takes nebbish victim, played by Eisenberg and uses the self defense training education as a red pill vs blue pill extreme dichotomy, which it shows as toxic masculinity vs normality. Really that is just idiotic and shallow. Intelligent people know that there are extremes on both sides of this and the extremes are not representative of the majority.

Eisenberg's initial victimhood isn't just about getting poorly treated at work or in relationships where a full on "red pill" can be an over the top response. He is not just subject to name calling or non violent bullying where turning the other cheek can be ok. he is also the victim of several violent criminal assaults brought on by his passivity.

The peer reviewed work shows violent criminals are looking for and attuned to testing for passivity. They are not looking for a fair fight -- they are looking for the most passive victims. Basic signals of situational awareness and capability to respond to violence with violence are what make them avoid victimizing you.

I really felt like a nebbish screen writer had taken a couple of hours training, expected magic powers and been turned off by an instructor telling them what their dad should have taught them, which is: deescalate when able, flee when able, but fight and know how to do so with initiative and best use of force if unable to de-escalate or flee. And, sorry but that requires some training and a mindset.

It is a shame the film devolved into the binary with the implication that any ability to protect one self is an expression of extreme toxic masculinity. It isn't.

The show keeps going downhill. Why are people so surprise that the ratings keep doing so badly in the 18-49 demographic? This episode was childish and shallow, whether it be headshots with unsighted compost bows, absurd risks, or the fire trope. Samantha Morton's whisperer leader has the guile of a kitten. Less and less make any sense.

Downvote that factual observation all you want. But it doesn't change the fact.

Boxing isn't just associated or correlated with lower IQ and higher crime commission rates -- we know it is causal to those effects. It results in about 10x more brain damage than football. These kids will have a higher incidence of Parkinson's, earlier onset dementia, stroke, and a host of other TBI (traumatic brain injury) related disease. Even sparring with sparring equipment including head gear results in brain inflammation and any brain inflammation causes brain damage.

Is it really helping kids to give them lifelong loss of cognitive function?

As another reviewer noted this was something widely understood to correlate for a century, but today the science has made the association starkly clear, the mechanism understood and the causality clear as well. With each drop of thee points in IQ by three points the likelihood of committing violent crime goes up.

Oh Trump had 6 bankruptcies among the 722 corporate entities he helmed. Oh wow! Do the writers of this show even know that puts him in the top 10% most successful in the real estate development and hospitality industries? Oh Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and everyone throws a fit when it turns out this is something progressive icon Fiorello LaGuardia said.

Seriously if this show weren't so morose it would be fun to watch just for the extreme butthurt it demonstrates. Don't you guys realize conservatives LOVE the whining and crying you guys are wallowing in? Trump pops a kids balloon on the show. Wow that is great writing!

Seriously, read the LA times review. I agree, it is a muddled mess. It is Lifetime ,movie level attempt at metaphysics, and frankly, lead by actors/actresses who can't act. As Variety mentions the press notes for this film don't lead with the setting, plot notes, etc, but led with the following: *"first completely vegan set." * The cast is 50% female and 41% people of color, with a 45% women crew.

Oh wow, virtual signaling is bad enough but that is really really pitiful. No wonder all the major outlets did not pick this up and it ended up free on Vimeo. It is idi otic. simple minded, has laughable cringe worth script and delivery, and beyond tedious.

This is yet another film with 4/5 of reviews single one time use accounts. ie junk film shilled up by fake accounts. It is unwatchable with endless cringeworthy scenes

This film is difficult to review without spoilers. Let's just say the premise is interesting and promising, but shortly thereafter falls into predictable derivative tropes interrupted by a series of somewhat implausible twists.

If so Amber Heard wins. I mean really I agree with the concencus here, she destroyed one of the best characters ever written. How did she make Nicalo six one of the most seductive femme fatals ever written in a novel so vaccuous?