Reviews

They went home and wrote this script. Every character in this show was dysfunctional. It started and ended with it. It never stopped in between. If it had been a more healthy family who found themselves in a tough situation it could have been more relatable. But every choice and every action was exactly what you'd expect to see on the stage on the Springer Show. If chaos, dysfunction, a personal lack of any moral code, over the top villainy racism, train wreck is your thing, you might enjoy this one. If not, save yourself the torment and pass on The Lie.

Who ponies up the money to produce this stuff?

However, based on the first episode, it feels like this reboot will quickly end up in the dust bin of television history. I've been a huge fan of the original series so I was both nervous and excited to hear about this reboot. Having watched it I have to believe that Rod Serling will return to haunt those responsible for this lazy, exploitative rendition of his hard work and good name. I continued to watch for the entire episode hoping there would be a Twilight Zone worthy payoff towards the end. There wasn't. This episode was an hour of drawn out painfully unfunny comedy, and lazy, uninformed politics that didn't even relate to the episode theme at all. It was the sad poke in the eye partisan cheap shots we've grown used to seeing in cable news these days. So if you were hoping to kick back and relax with clever, insightful, and thought provoking entertainment, you're not going to find it here. There is very little in this episode that is recognizable as a Twilight Zone brand. Frankly, I'm surprised that this even passed the pitch or script approval phase. And I'm very disappointed that the finished episode made it to broadcast. With each train wreck reboot of time honored classics like this, the more jaded and less willing I am to watch others. It would have been different if they hadn't built this show on the coat tails of the Twilight Zone name. But they did. And now they're destroying both productions. There will never be a marathon airing of this show, 1 year or 50 years later. I genuinely hope that the quality of the show improves over the following episodes. However, its going to take some time after this disaster to sit down and give it another chance. It was actually painful to watch the great legacy of the original Twilight Zone brand dragged through this embarrassment.

This is a spoiler free review. There was some genuine talent in this production. And it didn't feel like it was underfunded like I worried it might be. However, they did seriously miss the mark. When I first heard of this I hoped it reinvigorate the movement taking in to consideration the best parts of feminism and leaving behind the other parts. Sadly, it achieved the opposite. Feminism isn't a young movement anymore. Over the years we've collected very good data on what works, and what doesn't. I didn't see these lessons portrayed at all in this film. In fact, I saw many of the parts that don't work well put up as the movements shining achievements. I was particularly dismayed they suggested that we should choose a president solely on the basis of her gender. This is an example of entitlement, not as earning and deserving of ones position. With simple logic like this how can this movement be taken seriously? It left me with the icky feeling afterwards that this was nothing more than haphazard political propaganda paid for by the least ethical of special interests groups. The fact that is was released just before an election, with a political message that was telling us how women should vote didn't help. I wish they had taken this opportunity to share what women have achieved and how to revive the movement from its currents remnant status. Public opinion polls show the movement is at an all time low. Its less popular now than in the 60s when it was new and a foreign scary way for both genders to think. And its still falling in its status today. If you ask your friends and family today what is feminism? You'll likely get a response something like its a bunch of maladjusted angry women who care more about whats bad for men, than whats good for women. After watching I took the opportunity to discuss it with friends and co workers. The responses were not encouraging. Ladies, take back the movement from the radicals. Feminism is seen as a dangerous and angry group by most today. Without some thoughtful reform this movement will fade in to history as another misguided and failed political movement. As of this moment, feminism popularity is in the single digits. Its demise is closer than you might want to think. If you don't engage now, it might be too late tomorrow. It is possible that we could achieve a world where gender is no more considered in a persons worth than hair color or height. It truly is possible. But we're heading in the opposite direction. Feminism is making women less valuable not more, in its current form. I debated for some time whether to include a reference to Ms. Hekcate's review here. However, if we're going to save the movement, we need to be willing to step in to uncomfortable territory. Her review was titled, "boys should be afraid", and included a line that stated, "Your terror of women is well noted, boys .. as I can hardly call you men :)" This is exactly the type of man hating bigotry, that real feminists have stood against and whats turning people away from the movement today. When you encounter men or women in the movement with outlooks like these, try to befriend them and find out whats driving them. Perhaps with your compassion and taking the time to care about them, they might grow in to healthy and helpful representatives of the movement. Hers are the only voices that people hear and remember. We really need to change that. Improving the station of women in society shouldn't be perceived to come at the expense of trying to destroy men. And since they still have the power, how likely are they to want to share it if we advertise we celebrate their demise? Would you let someone in to your club who openly despises and wants to destroy you? Men as a group may have their follies and faults, but they aren't suicidal or idiots. You really can represent women better Ms. Hekcate.

The truth is still out there, but I wish they would have put some of it in this episode. Aside from the familiar faces, and shadows of original story lines, there's not much recognizable as X-Files in this episode. In place of the good story telling we came to love in the original seasons, here we just get all the terrible tactics of cheap television. Episode 1 was packed full of constant shaky cam, hyper close ups, quick cuts, and strobe lighting effects. In other words you'll get all the nausea and headaches you want, and because its so chopped up you won't have a clue whats going on. Scenes that might have been able to be salvaged in editing were cut up and shuffled together in a way that felt unnatural, non-nonsensical, and frankly annoying. However, the absolutely worst offense of the new season has to be the soundtrack. There was obviously zero attempt made to bring the quality, sound, or mood that Mark Snow brought in years past. If you went by sound alone, you would have no idea this was an X-Files episode. Those behind this soundtrack made a poorly written and directed episode truly unwatchable. It felt like it was a canned soundtrack that was hastily thrown together and intended for another show. Mark Snow's work was brilliant and recognizable even years later by anyone who'd ever seen the show. This episode was a strange, annoying, inappropriate noise that never let up. When scenes would finally end there was a sense of relief, and thankfulness that it was finally over. As someone who has been a faithful fan of the series, owner of the entire disc sets including movies, I really tried to like the new work. However, it was so bad that it took me 4 attempts on different days just to make it through the first episode. Each time I tried to watch, I had to stop because it was genuinely painful to witness. With all the terrible directing, writing, editing, and soundtrack, the original cast actors delivered respectable performances. However, everyone else should be banished from ever working in Hollywood again. Ever. I fear this is so bad that it will taint the reputation of the franchise, the actors, and the fans. I am genuinely shocked they released material this poorly made.

I'm generously giving this a rating of 2 out of respect for the show, the talent, and the legacy.

Note to the money behind this work: What were you thinking? Did you even view this before it was released? If you found a competent editor you might have saved some humiliation for the show. You've seen the audience feedback on tricks like shaky cam, hyper closeups, quick cuts, and yet you packed this show with them? Were you trying to sabotage the show? The editing of the car chase scene alone could probably win the worst scene ever award. This episode is a painful embarrassment and you made it happen.

The film in a serious subject, but far too often the shaky cam forces the audience to look away missing much of this movie. If you like nausea and headaches check it out. Otherwise simply skip this one. Its really surprising to me that in a day in age when there is so much hardware available to directors to keep video smooth and professional that something like this could ever get made. Directors and Investors: It doesn't matter how good your script is, if you make your movie look like a middle school phone camera youtube video, we can't watch it.

OK, so the dystopian end of the world theme has worn thin, but this story took a unique enough approach that it could have been a good character driven story. Unfortunately, the constant shaky cam, hyper closeups, out of focus shots, and all the other amateur camera tricks that have long over stayed their welcome prevent the viewer from being pulled in to the story. Its a shame really, the performances were solid. Ellen and Evan delivered performances that could have made up for the derivative and at times predictable story, and weak dialog. If only they could have afforded a tripod, steady cam or gimbal rig, it could have been a respectable flick.

To the money that backed the project: shaky cam movies nearly always rank lower than they should. If you make your audience motion sick, and cause headaches its difficult to thank you for it and give you a high rating. Viewers aren't spending their money on bigger 4k screens hoping for movies that are blurry and shaky.

and still does. Its an interesting story with real life characters that are more interesting than fiction. However, the shaky cam, out of focus shots, hyper closeups, and quick cuts made the film too painful to make it anywhere close to half way through the movie. It was a movie that I really wanted to see, but its never going to happen. Its a real shame with the budget of this film that they couldn't afford a tripod, or steady cam rig. Or even a grown up editor. If I walk away from a movie nauseous and with a headache I can't reward the creators with a high score. Viewers aren't spending money on bigger 4k screens hoping for blurry and shaky camera-work. This story, and the real persons involved deserved a better effort than this.

101 minutes of shakycam, hyper closeups, out of focus shots, obstructed views, and other nausea and headache inducing camera-work. This is the type of film that you'd expect from drunk camera persons, and adolescent editors. If you taped a camera on top of a bobbelhead, this is what it would look like. The real surprise is that movies like this are still being funded. A brief look at the earning of the film suggests they didn't want a return on their investment. Its very rare to see a shakycam flick turn a profit. And its getting more difficult because the audience has learned to always get a refund from a shakycam movie. The camera-work destroys the movie viewing experience. At no point during this film will you forget that you're watching a movie and get pulled in to the story. While some viewers are more tolerant than others to the nausea cam effects, many who try to watch this will become physically ill. I've seen better work from pre-teens with camera phones. Shakycam destroys movies like singing off key destroys music. Amateurs should stick to YouTube.

This story is an important one. Its a piece of history that should be told, and passed on to future generations. Sadly, that won't happen with this movie. The directing and editing destroyed the film. You won't get more than a minute of normal viewing before the viewer is painfully removed from the experience by nausea inducing shaky cam, out of focus hyper close ups, and strobe lighting effects. And the makers of Pawn Sacrifice used all the amateur tactics that predictably pull the viewer out of the experience of enjoying a movie. In the end I made it less than 20 minutes in before I had to walk away because of nausea. I can understand directors who really want to be cool more than they want to make a watchable movie. What I have trouble understanding is why investors would through away cash producing a movie that about a third of the population can't watch without physically becoming ill. They've proved that these tactics decimate the income potential of a movie- and the IMDb ratings. Even if someone makes it all the way through, and enjoyed the story and performances, their body feels like the just sailed a canoe through hurricane leaving a generally dissatisfied feeling about the movie. Increasingly directors are finally starting to take notice that a lot of people really hate being assaulted at the movies. Yet, the investors knew what they were doing, and presented this movie for our review. Its a real shame. This could have been an award earning movie. Now its just another wasted shaky cam amateur production. I've seen teenagers with phone cameras produce more professional movies. How much money did they throw away on this experiment? I used to deduct 2-3 points from my rating for shaky cam because it was a new tool that producers want to explore, develop and integrate in to their story telling. I gave some slack because it was new. Now we're very familiar with the tactics, and the feedback is in. We know for a fact that very large numbers of the audience hates it- and won't watch it even if its a movie we really want to see. Now when a big budget movie comes out with this assaulting style of editing, it will never get better than a 2 on IMDb. And if I went to a theater to watch it, it will result in a refund and several online reviews. I hope that I have helped others avoid wasting their time, and a night of being sick. How long would a restaurant stay in business if they made a third of the clients sick? About as long as the amateurs who produced this movie will find investors for their next project. Not long.

Another movie that I was really pumped to see, killed by idiots. Shaky cam, quick cuts, bobble-head cam, crash zooms, and horribly edited audio makes this flick a quick refund. In a time when serious producers, and more importantly the money behind movies have left 'the look' in the rear view, some slow learners like The Big Short, just don't get it. If you want someone to sit through or pay for a 2 hour movie, you can't edit in a way that causes nausea, vomiting, and migraines. Its not rocket science. Hollywood mastered these rules in the 1920s. If you ever wandered what a movie would look like if you mounted a camera on top of a bobble head, and asked a 3rd grader to make a movie, make sure to catch A Big Short. Its right up your alley. The keyword in this review is REFUND. I have never supported this juvenile look, and I will die before I pay a single dollar to encourage it. As home screens get bigger, the movie industry goes shakier? Hmmm, what could go wrong? Its time to go to Hollywood with pitchforks and torches. The only good news here is that most in Hollywood have taken the hint that this look is hated, passionately, by most. Those who make movies to make money won't use it. Those who want to be the misunderstood rebel, well... give us products like The Big Short. Nine minutes in, easy choice to abort and refund. The producers and editors who couldn't make the cut to get in to MTV, go to Hollywood. Whoever was involved in the funding of this movie, needs to be fired. I'd like to know who it was that thought, hey lets make a movie about banking, and market it to pre-teens. This person wins the brilliant dumb ass award.

Its not slightly shaky, its abusively shaky. Extreme close ups are gratuitous and leave the viewer without a sense of whats going on in the scene. The dialog was one dimensional. Bottom line, it tried way too hard to be cool and comes across as amateur and insulting to history and the viewer. I couldn't finish the film, so I can't speak for how it ends. But watching it was painful and nauseating. Its a real shame because I've been looking forward to its release for a while. I really wanted to like this movie. But at the end of the day, its produced so poorly that its rendered unwatchable. When producers realize that movies are about telling a story, in this case history, instead of trying to be cool, they'll stop getting overall failing grades at IMDb. Investors are throwing away their money.

This might have been a decent movie, but I can't really say. I walked out 15 minutes in to it and demanded a refund. If a producer wishes to exclude 30% of their audience by making their product so shaky as to induce nausea, vomiting, and migraines, then they should consider a 3 of 10 rating on IMDb a blessing. Buy a freakin tripod or steadycam rig. At least stop adding extra shake in post. Even though I wanted to watch and like this movie, and was seriously disappointed, I still have to laugh when I see the budget of this production. Drunk teenagers with phone cameras are literally producing more professional work on youtube. The shaky effect doesn't make the viewer feel like they are a part of the action, and they just 'go with it', it induces nausea, vomiting, migraines and continuously reminds one they are watching an amateur quality production. If you insist on using this effect, know going in that you're precluding about 30% of the population from viewing your product.