Reviews

I've been watching this show since I was a child. News Flash! Many DAYS viewers are competent and intelligent people. We enjoy suspending reality and watching good melodrama. Escapism is an important way of coping with all the problems in the world.

I understand the plot lines and the characters of DAYS because I've known the characters for so long, they actually feel like part of my life. In particular, I love the way the characters celebrate big life and death events and we experience their grief/happiness. I love the pattern that has been established over years of viewing. Yes, I even love the implausibility of many of the events, including the way DAYS has of bringing evil characters back from the dead.

So it is not necessary to change the format!

Recently, I was upset when the HEAD WRITER decided to move the story forward by a year. What stupidity. An absolutely terrible decision!

Part of the joy in of watching a soap is to see how things play out and experience the emotions of the characters. It is a cathartic experience (no matter how contrived the story lines may be). DAYS fans have been robbed of so many experiences because of jumping forward by a year.

How did this happen? Is the decision to move forward by a year is more concerned with the ego?Or the aim of the HEAD WRITER to win an award. Or to try and motivate new people to watch the show? What ever the reason it was the wrong choice.

As a DAYS fan, the reason why I watch is to to observe and participate in fantasy world, full of stereotypes of good and evil, full of flawed characters (who often come good), full of love triangles (where good always wins out, even it if is for just a little while before the next hurdle).

I love the characters near death experiences, and the tearful reunions and memories. I love that the characters who are on death's doorstep fully recover due to some miracle. It doesn't matter if the character doesn't die, because what happens to them creates an emotional release. Yes I cry, and that is OK. We feel their pain and we also feel the joy when the outcome is a good one.

I can't believe the HEAD WRITER got it so wrong. I hope the HEAD WRITER hasn't destroyed our favorite soap opera and it can recover.

Leave DAYS alone. I like it the way it is (or was).

This is a great series. It is captivating and we won't do anything else on Mon, Tues and Wed evenings until it is over. We love the gamesmanship and the humour. At times it is such a crack up and we love the strategies attempted by the contestants.

Anyone who takes this seriously needs to give themselves an upper cut.

David is amazing and a producer's dream. He has the ability to constantly polarise opinion. We love Mr Golden God, as he is the best game player we have ever seen, plus his ability to make fun of himself is to die for. In fact, the whole cast has been great and wonderful to watch.

The only negative thing we could say is that we find the sound really annoying because the background music track gets bumped up so high in the production studio you can't always hear what the contestants are saying.

Frustrating! This film has skilful performances but is let down by a chop chop chop back and forth narrative structure. Despite this the film does has some emotion but could be more powerful if the story built instead of chopping around all the time. It was so annoying, I could not tell which scenes were flashbacks until over half way into it when someone said look for a faint orange tint which means flashbacks. Little Women is one of my favourite stories and if I didn't already know the story I would have no idea what was happening and when it was happening. Many people thought the director was snubbed for an academy award nomination but really this is not a great film and that sounds like the right decision. The director goes out of her way to make the characters look stiff when setting scenes and perfectly framed long shots of buildings and parks. While this might be a good idea to show the repression of the times it is a little overcooked.

Cinema is not dead. Feature film has the opportunity to engage us emotionally and Jojo Rabbit delivers on all fronts. It is humorous, profound and moving. We were crying in the theatre and at times after we left it. It is beautiful, thoughtful and the performances are outstanding. Clever!

This film cracked us up. It pokes fun at the genre. We laughed so much. Can't believe the negative reviews. There are a couple of jokes that miss the mark but the rest is enjoyable. The performances are very good. If people don't like this they need to loosen up and not take life so seriously.

Kyle in this show is shown as someone who just wants to sensationalise crap and polarise opinions, and the shallower the verdict the better.

Come on Channel Ten. We don't want this sort of crap on the TV. I refuse to watch it and turn it off now if it comes on.

Cheap and tacky.

Honestly the two lead actors were great and have so much charisma. I love them and the female lead is just gorgeous and good at her craft. She also co-wrote the screenplay. The humour and some key lines of dialogue are worth watching for alone. My expectations are high as It starts out at a cracking pace but unfortunately it starts to slow up at the mid point. The problem is a failure to identify the a key protagonist (the mum) so we loose track. This film would have worked better if we had alternating story lines and a multiple protagonist set up. The problem with films is that we need to be able to connect to the key characters who we are supposed to empathise with very early in the film and we don't have that connection with the mum so in the end the sentiment feels contrived.

The story is about a young woman who is partly indigenous (if there is such a thing) and she is about to marry her man from a European background. A clever use of the symbolism just in this point alone. Anyway she wants to get married in the Darwin, NT where her parents live. Unfortunately her indigenous mum has left her father and gone walkabout to find herself and this is the entire plot of the film.

We can't feel the empathy that we need to feel towards mum because she was introduced too late in the film and by the time she is introduced it just makes the ending look superficial. Anyway her mum wants to belong to her place of birth and reconnect with her family. This is a powerful storyline but it is way underplayed. As I said I wished we could have been invested in this from the beginning of the film. It is such a valid value to pursue but not pulled off totally in this instance and by the end of the film we feel like we are going through the motions of what a "good film should be."

Still there are so many beautiful aspects to this film. with great performances and is well shot and edited. I still felt affection for mum (and all the characters) but I wanted to know her better and for this reason the story isn't as powerful as it could be. I feel that the writers missed the opportunity to say something stronger. Still congrats. What an effort. Hope to see more of this type of work and the hint of the brilliance to come from these writers.

Just saw this film and it is captivating. What ever you do don't believe the low rating some others have given it because it is not accurate and you will need to question the motivations of those scoring this film so low when it is worthy of much more. Maybe a touch of jealously cause it is a Netflix film. The acting is superb with a great script, crisp cinematography and wonderful sound. The director transports us in the 15th century and we are captivated by the situation King Henry V finds himself in. Surrounded by corruption and men who are willing to kill each other for property and status.

All the cast was brilliant and the two lead actors were exceptional.

The only negative is that it is a touch long. I say that it was long but I can't see anything that could have been left out. I saw it at the cinema but I think if you were watching it at home you could pause it and still return to be immersed where you left off.

I hope we see more from this team as they did a great job.

So this film is clever in many ways because it appeals exactly to the demographic that like to go to the cinema. The story is about life-long friends who gather together for Frank's birthday and explore some unresolved issues only to solidify their relationships further by the end of the film. The film is similar to many English films that have been it's predecessor but it is set in OZ. Rachel Ward does some nice subtle tricks when directing this film and uses the incredible landscape to full effect. It is almost like a tourism to promote NSW. Great performances all around but what would you expect from the seasoned pros in the film. I found the sound track suited the film but the lack of Foley and layering resulted empty atmosphere. It would have been better to invest some money in sound to compliment the beautiful depth of colour and visual images featured in the film. But isn't sound is always the hardest thing to get right on a movie? The story is pretty basic and we are just voyeurs in the life of the wealthy. Would prefer to see real issues explore by characters the Western suburbs than observe a bunch of wealthy blokes in Palm Beach have a late mid-life crisis. And there lies the problem of the film and story - it is a touch pretentious. Why does Rachel Ward think the audience is only interested in middle-upper class people? Or is it just that this is the environment she understands best? I think it is probably that she thought it would be aesthetically pleasing. The result is a stereotyped approached to a genre that has already been done many times over. There is a formula being applied which does work and it works for people who want to see an Aussie version English films. Still a great effort and many delicate touches by the director. Hope it does well for the team that made it. Congrats.

Rachel Griffiths makes her debut as a Director. The story is based on Michelle Payne who was the first woman jockey to win the Melbourne Cup. You would have to be living under a rock not to know who she is if you are Australian. It is a big deal to win the Melbourne Cup in OZ and for this reason alone the story is interesting to watch. Michelle Payne's story is inspirational and a tribute to her determination to be the top of her field. Stevie Payne played himself and he was given so many witty lines. There is a brilliant line when Michelle Payne asks Stevie if she is good enough to win before she mounts Prince of Penzance. Stevie replies "I don't know if you are, but he is. He's a champion." And the rest is history. Michelle Payne's story is one of remarkable determination.

From a filmmaking point of view there were a few minor issues such as skirting over the death of Michelle's sister Bridget in a riding accident, trying to go for charm over substance and at times obvious exposition. I think the story could have benefited from more fleshing out instead of just focusing on the known facts.

There were some problems with the choice of shots. I felt like some of the shots created a lack of atmosphere. The audience was often shown close shots when there could have been mid or wide shots. I would have liked to see more wide shots of the Australian landscape and experience more of what it was actually like for Michelle to participate in a male dominated sport or to actually ride a horse in the event. What we saw was quite limited. There is also the elephant in the room. The lack of exploration about the treatment of horses in the film. Even if it is too difficult to address the abuse of animals by the filmmakers I would have liked to have seen more about horses.

Anyway making a film is never easy and the team should be congratulated. Worth seeing.

This film still stands out as a classic over 32 years past the time it was made. The performances are outstanding as is the tone of the film. The setting up of the story is vitally important to it's power and emotional devastation at the end. We watch the story of five working class men, their struggles and war. Meryl Streep, John Savage, Robert De Nero and Christopher Walken are exceptional. This film took out so many awards at the time it was released and deservingly so. Walken and Savage will break your heart but only matched by the subtlety of De Nero and Streep. This has to be one of the best films of all time.

Come on! This film is a spoof. It is ludicrous and bloody. I usually like spoofs but as far as I can tell this film takes itself seriously which is why I give it the low rating. I'm over this genre. The only hook in this film is a blood bath. No purpose and you're left asking what for?

Leaving Neverland is crafted with precision and provides a powerful testimony of two men's experience of sexual abuse by a pop icon. It is implemented with such skill that it can only be perceived as credible.

The story is powerful and shocking. Clever camera positioning, editing and lighting. The mood, tone and sound track are haunting. You only feel empathy for the victims. The men are relatable, articulate and intelligent. The viewer watches as these two men confide their most intimate and humiliating experiences to us.

The men have reached a point where there is no way forward but to voice their experiences as survivors of child sexual abuse. It is little wonder they agreed to do this in this manner as they were persistently groomed to lie publicly to the media and to the authorities about their abuse. They even publicly denied the experiences of other victims when these children came forward. Leaving Neverland provides these two men with an opportunity to counteract these denials and to do so in the public domain. They seemed to have been denied this opportunity for catharsis by the justice system who declared their applications to be out of time. They have lodged an appeal. Given that they have received no justice through the legal system (to date) this documentary provides them with a means to regain personal power, improve their mental health and to take control over their own lives. As Wade Robson states "I want to speak the truth as loud as I spoke the lie." There is no way that the people who have taken away his personal power and right to justice have not heard him now.

Leaving Neverland is a narrative about sexual abuse but with wider implications. It is about societal corruption, fame and capitalism. The film somewhat encourages us to understand that the parents were groomed too and that their weaknesses were exploited by a wealthy, popular and manipulative paedophile. In the end we are left feeling sceptical about the parents (the way that their children also feel about them). The audience is prompted to exclaim, "What planet were they living on!" And, "They left their children alone in a bedroom with a paedophile to be molested night after night and for months on end!" The viewer is left asking "Come on! How much did they really know?" That whole question is scary. It leaves you feeling that a blind eye was turned, consciously or unconsciously. It would be more constructive to aim the blame where it belongs, at the paedophile himself, at a society that preferred to believe that this paedophile was beyond accountability, at his publicity machine, and at the minders around him who had to be complicit in this abuse.