Reviews

Great movie. First of, it brings twists and turns in the plot, or at least I really did not expect it to go in the direction it did. Therefore, I could say that the movie is "alive", it follows its own path and it does so sublimely. So it went like this - we thought we are watching a comedy, then at some point we were glued to the screen, but someone asked "Is this supposed to be a comedy, really?". Then by the end we had cried and laughed and it all felt nicely and yet powerfully cathartic. A good movie to watch when wondering what is life and living all about. And to remember that children are the future and the hope for healing the soul of humanity, so tired and entangled in its complicated problems nowadays. No spoilers, just watch it. And wait for it...

The puzzle is being put together, meaning that the series attacks sf ideas that so far have been scattered in less publicized series, some of them very good but tanked. of course these ideas had to be picked up by Spielberg, but I will not go on on this line of ideas. I will just say that we need a hardened sf movie fan to explain to us which idea came from where. Notice that the director of the pilot, Alex Graves,also directed Fringe's pilot and Journeyman, that Jason O'Mara was in Life of Mars US (which I like best that the UK version...), that René Echevarria was in fact the producer of The 4400 (great show until it went downhill and away) in which we find the same aliens-are-from-the-future and change the past ideas. Also Brannon Braga produced Flash Forward and Star Trek. There are things familiar from lost and from Jurassic Park, so there a huge mix of old and recent anticipative ideas. The crazier genre lovers would say "they are showing us what we always suspected it happened", and, less crazy would be to say that the ideas go well together and make sense in the "what if" world, and that we have a great show ahead of us if they do not over do it. Indeed, the teenager drama is a bit out of tune, the talking and acting in the future just as now is also...safe, but not so memorable. But if the action has some pretty good twists and strong sf ideas tied up together, original or not, we might just skip over the lamer parts just to see what's next. I don't know why I was under the impression that JJ Abrams is working on this one, too :)That would have been a reunion all right.

This feels so familiar, because so many times we have seen the people who sit at the counter, stock the goods or chop the meat in the "no man's land" that supermarkets are, yet we have seen them with the corner of out eye. In Trollied they are filmed, they have names and lives, they actually don't care too much about the hatred management, which is repulsive to the managers themselves after all...spending day after day in the "merchandise forest", the guys get around the stiff rules and go on being the guys.

It's a slow paced comedy, under the neon lights everybody knows that the surveillance cameras or the bosses eyes cannot work everywhere and all the time. Before the digital supervision, a friend once told me stories about working in a supermarket and stuffing his face in the back alleys together with the other shelf boys. Now it's a bit harder, but still...everyone is bored, everyone compensated...talks, is naughty, reads from the shelves, eats from the shelves. the scenes are like bits and bobs, sometimes cameos. As I said, it looks so familiar, but not from other shows, but from life.

The show stand out because it does not wretch of forced script, concept or performances. They just struck gold by keeping it real, observing and adapting for screen.

Good one.

Not having looked up the actors or the creators though, The series feels like a B series show, or like a soap opera of the sitcoms. Maybe the actors usually star in such movies, maybe the director has a hand for that genre. But the mix of working class people and their jobs, serious problems that they have and comical situations that are not instant, but diluted throughout the entire episodes sure gives that feeling of programmed fun. Programmed to be understood by everybody, to stir some empathy in the tired employee watching in the evening, in the younger and naive office girl, in the retired couple who occupy their late years trying not to remain out of touch with the modern world. It vaguely triggers memories of Peep Show, probably because of the suffocating office world feeling. It is much more traditional, yet not dumb, so far. It remains to be seen where is it going, because this closed universe and tiny everyday issues are starting to seem tiring.

Definitely, people nowadays are growing more and more different and apart; otherwise I couldn't explain why this movie has so contrasting reviews on IMDb whilst other movies tend to polarise the opinions. I found myself wondering how do those who hated it look or feel or think - maybe it would have been useful if they had offered examples of what they consider good comedies... Or maybe it's just the people involved in the movie that provoked the rebellious reactions? I did not know who directed the movie or that Kristen Wii is a SNL regular. And I enjoyed the movie as it was, not very elaborated but alive, kind in a surprising way. A zillion kudos to Kristen Wiig - I for one loved her character! Brought a lot of optimism and compassion in a world obsessed with perfection, rules, the right look, relationship, job...the right everything. The gross moments did not seem artificial, one could laugh at them shamelessly because the action slowly build up to them. And they were decent, I've seen comedies with out of order icky situations and it did not feel that bad way here. The character is great: we have a loser who cannot stop herself from saying the most daring truths in the face of strangers or friends and who can accept herself and go on with her life as it is, even when things go from bad to worse. Oh, I miss the times when people like this roamed free, and they were not relaxed only if they were stupid enough not to realise how inadequate they were!The others are also good, kinda cooky but still plausible. I know: in a particular way, the movie manages to be innocent, fresh, childish. Which is rare nowadays. Maybe I was heat struck (the negative reviews really made me wonder), but it sure felt that way to us. I recommend watching it free of analysis, comparisons and antipathies.

...even though it is unclear if it is good by intent or by incidence.

The best part was the reversed Nirvana, in which the better for a soul being would be not to completely cease existing, but to remain forever inserted in a reality as created by his best dreams. The scope is not to rid oneself from all attachments, but to unify the source with the best particular manifestation of those.

Great! As for the soldier twisted plot, i do not see it as the centre idea, maybe if we shift the soldier term to the less material idea that in a way we are all soldiers, but somehow it is unclear in which army:). but I'd rather leave that alone, it seems nonessential and somehow propagandistic compared to the other part, about how we live our lives and how we could actually live them, maybe...

"Everything is gonna be OK"

They are like some updated more relaxed Friends, with which one feels it is nice to spend some time during the week.

The premise is just a pretext: a girl leaves a guy at the altar, then they have to work out how to live as dudes, in order not to split their friends. Their friends are not so deep or sentimental, but they are a support, they are there.

So, in every episode, we have a couple of funny events from this group's life. They are a happy-ish bunch, no economy crisis, no money trouble, we have diversity in their gender, sexual orientation etc. But it doesn't have to be a depiction of reality, and it feels happy, as the title, to see everyone having a lot of time for themselves, a lot of money obviously and a lot of good moods.

It's a feel good, chill out series, and the fact that maybe it has ended, well, this is just mean. Somebody just doesn't feel the public needs to have casual fun...just dramas and such clenched-buttocks shows, and even there some of the best just get cancellations.

Happy endings is worth more than just a season, the characters are nice people...they should let them live.

The movie-pilot from 2008 left me with an unclear impression: it seemed so naive compared to other up to date shows, so simple, that I thought it cannot hold it together. I watched it with some friends, it was my idea to pick it, and I was prepared to say sorry for wasting their time.

But later we realised that the characters were lovable and the Gabrone city with all of them had entered our imagination and was there to stick. They wouldn't go away, every day seemed to settle what I had seen. And i found myself longing to see more...

From here on, the series made their own perfect sense. A happier, simpler world, no swearing, human values, please and thank you...and yet they didn't seem unreal.

The atmosphere of the series is extremely enjoyable, and I suppose it originates in the books. The accent adds to that, I love it. The characters, the names...it's a small world that I am looking forward to see again.

The aesthetics of the show is also outstanding: the colours, the fabrics, the expressive faces and the great camera movements. The music is good, too.

It is definitely not the usual cup of tea, no use comparing to other HBO products. But forget the ratings and bring it back, reruns, follow-ups,whatever, if the spirit is still there. It is a precious piece of work about a brave woman also named Precious.And it depicts beauty, in many forms.

Dumela, mma!

The movie does not do justice to India, nor women. It feels weird to watch it, as if someone tore up random pages from the script and just filmed what was left. As for the erotic recommendations, they do not meet their match, probably those belong to people who are compelled to associate the word "Kamasutra" with sensuality and eroticism, without bothering to actually see the movie for what it is.

The central character is very unclear: what are Maya's relationships with the other girl and all the women from the palace she grew up in? What is the purpose of the disturbing hunchback elderly man that seems to love her, yet ends up by calling her a whore? It is incredible how much babble about sex and love we have to sit through without any real story about either of them.overall, what is the purpose of this entire movie?

The "bad" prince (N.Andrews)is more convincing than the lover/sculptor, who purposelessly waves his long hair around; somebody must have miscasted the actors... Maya is an unlikely mix of good naive girl and extremely sex driven fox, what is this bouillabaisse?? Only French movies manage to create such confusions, yet this claims to be a movie representing India.Very disappointing.

The fight, the ending, the girl...they are just not making sense. As for the sexual tension, old school Bollywood movies managed to create more without even featuring any nudity.

So, see it or not see it...depending on how much time you have to waste.

I am no professional critic, so I received the movie in the personal way in which every viewer should do with every movie, at least in their inner forum.

It is the first Bergman movie, and I cannot estimate if it will be the last or not. I found it recommended as "soothing" somewhere, and being aware of how much of an important director Bergman is considered, I thought why not give it a try.

It wasn't really soothing, but it wasn't difficult to watch either. The Swedish are weird for the less Nordic Europeans, that showed here too. Why are they so quiet, then so dramatic all of a sudden? And in this movie why were they marring cousins? Someone said once it is their climate...

I also wondered why it seemed that upper class could meditate of their lives and in the same time waste them, suffer and sigh (not only in this movie, but this one brought it back), while the financially undetermined characters are supposed to always be occupied with the simpler yet equally cruel struggles of everyday life?

So, I would contest the validity of the life cameo here because of the main character being so particular. Why take an individual so atypical and expand on life philosophy through him? And the greatest objection is that this movie seems purposeless, a luxury that in our era is very rarely permitted. Maybe judging it by the year it was made this would be less disturbing, but now...The old man has his dreams, his childhood flashbacks, the vague thoughts to change some things, yet it is considered somehow enough that he achieved some kind of human connection with his daughter in law, an encounter with some youngsters and half of a discussion with his son.

Well, it is not. People who do not bend all their lives for those close to them, leave traumas and marks that may not heal even after generations have come and gone. It is not enough to have a few dreams and half of a conversation, then forgive oneself and talk about epiphany. The film does not take a stand, therefore the likes of Isak could watch it and think that having thoughts is enough to change the world for the better, even the wrongs they have done.

And this is not moralistic talk. It is hard for humans to tell each other the truth, even harder to accept it. A movie, a book, a play can build a bridge over this gap. If a piece of such art tackles such a delicate subject it shouldn't let it in the air.

The movie is a cowardly approach of regret.

Interesting little thing: the way he was mixing with the past characters, him as an old man, the others young, telling him they remained young.

The movie is a colourful one, but unfortunately not in a metaphoric manner. The only excitement remains in the shades of blue, red and so on taken from real life jungle birds. And it is watchable, one can give it that, but also forgettable.

The action is cliché-istic, the idea of fear of flight was used for penguins and reindeer, and the plot to make it fit for a parrot is a bit forced. The humans are the geeky boring figures that seem to come most handy to the scriptwriters lately. The bullied child, or the fat child, and the mature geek...haven't we had enough of that? It does transmit the idea of love, sort of, maybe even coin a tear on this subject to some more sensitive viewers, but bearing in mind that it is hardly a movie for adults, what is this intoxicating children with love stories that actually happen much later in life? Do not take this for a prude affirmation, but rather as one pointing out that new good ideas are hard to find, as it seems.

Plus, what could have saved the movie wasn't there. They placed everything in an exotic country, but the atmosphere is lacking. It is as if they read some tourist leaflets and put them into the picture. Let's throw in some smugglers figures, some famous statue, a busy local market and a beautiful rich residence area...that will do it! The samba was, as one character said, boring, because it felt like old and recycled. The carnival of Rio was all over the place, yet it did not seem to be "there". If they went cliché-istic, for example, why didn't the girl dance on top of the carnival cart, but came down and produced a stumbled ballet that went away almost unnoticed? The parrot (Blue - what a creative name, btw), was cute as a baby parrot, parrot-y as an adult and the humans dressed up as parrots were freaky:).

The aftertaste of this animation is that of a spineless one, but then, a lot of those have seemed to meet the ovation of the critics and most of the public in the last year, so nothing new here too. So far this year I liked Gnomeo and Juliet more that this.

This movie is simple and joyful. Starting with the story, taken from Shakespeare, which is much better that concocting an unsatisfying script just in order to be original. I like that the story is what it is, and a lot of the humour comes from playing with this idea of borrowed action and characters. Plus, the kids have a way of finding out about the original writer and play, if not by asking earlier, at least when Old Will's statue appears as a character. Then the gnomes, individualised in a successful and comic manner (honorable mention for the "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts" gnome!).They are kitschy pieces of garden landscape, but still they can be nice, in a hip manner. They are mocked and sort of self-mocking themselves, as the plastic flamingo manages to do brilliantly.

And the music is absolutely super, it adds to the general atmosphere of fun. As much as I personally remain not interested in the Lady Gaga show, I could still appreciate her and Elton John's song - it sounded great.

It is a simple pleasure to watch the movie, even if in the end I wonder what made me become childish and sort of feel guilty to have liked so much a colourful and loud movie about garden gnomes. And the kids seem to love it, too.

I read a few comments that didn't do it any justice, almost avoided it because of them. But it's better that other animation of this year seen so far, for example the much praised Rio. And it's a happy movie! It's tiring that "sad streak" that maintained in the Disney movies and that was passed on to other American animations, why does anyone considers that movies for children need a tragic spot? This one plays a bit with the drama, but finally let everybody be happy.

I guess casting is for the viewer like naming a new baby for the persons who meet the baby: one cant's compare what it sees to what might have been. The movie it is what it is with these here actors. But this movie just gave me the feeling of bad casting. The actors are too sturdy, too... something for their parts. Maybe it's the subject's fault, all that talking about adjustment made me wonder how would it have been if someone would have adjusted the cast.

Besides this sensation, the idea is interesting, yet it fails to create an atmosphere, an universe. Matrix had that, for example. There are no important buildings, places, landscapes that would fix the cornerstones of such an universe. It's a miss.

I also resented the sharing of human history in slices, out of which some were watched by these agents, others not. Sounded too manipulative, why assume again that the humans by themselves are bad and only guided by mysterious others can be better? Why not the other way, since it's fiction? The bad humans idea is so used that it's all worn out...

I cannot compare it with the written story(never read it), so I will not judge the book from 1954, but the movie from 2011. And for this age, the ending is also a fail: announcing the winners like in a game show, talking about fighting for the free will, it's all so old and corny.

We have the "fabric of our universe" idea, the "guardians" or "watchers" idea, the multiple choice destiny idea, not many of them logically explained, even in a fictional way.

And what's with the hats? We have them at René Magritte, we have them in Fringe..now here. Anybody care to explain more about the hats obsession or symbolism?

These being said, I had the impression of a movie who wanted much, but settled for less.

The show is uncomplicated and funny. So far, the lines have not had fake, awkward moments, and the dynamic of the actors is good. I like the easy action, and the cheerful vibe that these episodes so far are sending out...

We have three buddies, one of them married and having a child, one with a just-moved-in girlfriend, and the other having short term relationships. They talk about whatever happens in their everyday lives and try to sneak a thing or two pass their partners, but without being douches. They manage somehow not to be boring either. The girls are also OK, not the main characters, but the permanent ones are well-drawn, and attract sympathy.

It's more a "relationships in the city" sitcom, but the dialogues and the friendship thing do remind of the SITC series. The writers have experience in good-rated comedy shows, so that explains it. Actually, this here Traffic Light is the American version of an Israeli sitcom, Ramzor,created by Adir Miller. On the other hand, Bob Fisher co-wrote Wedding Crashers, which had the same guys-talking-about relationships-without being too nasty air.

I hope they manage to keep this one going well, and not make artificial efforts to pump it up. The latest sitcoms on TV are following a "forced" tendency, that I cannot yet put into words, but I do not like. This one is not in the same batch.

OK, I laughed a few times and I also waited for this, I definitely want to see two actors from the cast of "Green Wing" and one from the cast of "Black Books" teamed up with with one from "Friends", BUT...is this show trying to prove that this mix cannot be a success? Because the pilot was really weak...just out of sympathy for the actors I did not change the channel.

The beginning...why did they choose to show us that? That kind of future time followed by flashbacks is not funny, it is a drama cliché. The guy at the gate, how did they got in? if they chose a thing to create a comic situation, I wanted to see the humour in solving that thing. and the little things...the work was sloppy: did the bathroom taps turned off by themselves? Show me at least that, I was worried they might flood up the place next. I am not a maniac, but such details form the bigger picture that forms the impression of the public.

Please make it funny, guys! And I really wished Tamsin would go back to her dark hair colour, she looks weird like that, all blondish/ grey-sh..yuck, i would blame her new stylist, is he/she American? Some people waited so much for these actors to be on again, why oh why do they let this be effed up by some crappy ...script-writers? directors? Who is responsible for ruining such good premises?

The movie feels like a child throwing his brightly coloured marbles on the floor: they look fascinating, going each in a different direction, their noise is loud yet pleasant and in the end one feels like laughing. But also as a spectator, if you are familiar with what a broken family means, there are moments when you feel like crying. A small girl lives with her violent father who gambles a lot and takes money from his own parents, while her mother is away from home, not wanting the father to know that she is seeing her daughter from time to time. But...things are not so cliché at all, the girl is a tough nut, the father is sometimes really well meaning, the mother is somehow too delicate, and the grandparents still treat their own son as a young boy, snapping at him and hitting him. you feel like you did not "get" each of them all over again when the story changes a couple of times. Old enemies become friends, on the edge of the absurd, only not quite, if you think of how things turn up in life. The movie is definitely worth seeing up to the end, because it has something unique. It also has violence, sincere facts of life, and the portraits of people from another culture or era. The hilarious scenes take you by surprise, one can't help laughing even if you somehow feel you should have stayed serious or even upset at some scene or another. Some Takahata features are visible too, the fighting cats, foe example, similar to the raccoon-dogs from Pom Poko. Very lively movie.

Call me "dumb", I do not care, because I have my own mind and experience and I know by now that I am not. My only reserve is that maybe I should see it twice, or that this is not the moment for me to have seen it( As is with reading books, today one can't stand it , tomorrow it makes perfect sense). Apart from this, a movie being an experience destined to consume itself at the maximum in one "kick", after this Inception experience, I feel that something is really missing here. What is the idea of this movie? What is it trying to express? In what system of beliefs is all this taking place? Because, apart from the famous cast, the good performances, the special effects that are everywhere and the incessant and disturbing gun noises, I do not see what am I supposed to get enriched with through watching this movie? OK, the idea of conscious dreaming is centuries-old, so is the idea of "staging" the life or the universe(no need to mention the link to Matrix, etc), but who would be the "dreamer" if we extrapolated to our lives? Because the thought of a world meant just for corporations and "important" individuals, I do not like. So, in a person's life, any person, how are the Inception ideas fitting in? Are we to look and see who "dreams" for us, and the movie couldn't put this idea bluntly? Are we dealing with an explanation for wave function collapse, controlled consciously by some skilled to do so and implementing during our sleep? I feel the need to say, "please explain yourself". One cannot mount such a giant of a movie (publicity, effects, cast and so), and in the end leave you with a bigger blur than before such ideas occurred. I would say it is either a case of snobbish commercialism that is not backed up by enough understanding and research, or a case of intricate mind and ideas that have no clarity in expressing themselves. It is an exercise for the brain, I give it that. But in the light of too much gratuitous violence, too less contoured universe of the movie, too crowded action, too soapy emotional effects (the passed away wife, the uncommunicative rich father) and too high praise that it deserves (c'mon, this is the new Matrix? Are we going back as the time goes by?, I feel deeply not pleased.

This is by far the best comedy series I have ever seen. The witty ideas just seem to surprise you and the atmosphere is something one will remain with as something familiar and friendly. When I think of it it seems like I spent my vacation with some dear nutty friends, not watching a movie. The actors are also giving their best, totally love Dylan Moran and Bill Bailey in this gem of a show, and Tamsin Greig is so well guided that she makes you laugh and love her in the same time, perhaps she is more dear to the viewer that she would be if one would meet her in person, I don't know. A pessimistic, unadapted bookseller with smoking and drinking problems (Dylan Moran) befriends an air headed clerk (Tamsin Grieg) and unwillingly hires a long-haired ex accountant to slave around and sell books, with maximum hilarious effect, that's Black Books in a very very simplified nutshell. They are all great. Geniuses. Only one minor criticism that a friend pointed out: the laugh tracks. But never mind, once you get the taste of this great comedy show, you will not notice them.

Nice movie, breezy I would say. The music was very inspiring and well chosen, it completed the British atmosphere. Hank Azaria plays the American jerk very well, on a totally opposite role than, let's say, the professor from Friends, and the marathon scenes kept the audience tense, waiting to see the outcome of the situation, since it didn't seem clear if the movie would make a turn in the plot or not. Loved Dylan Moran, the same mad genius as always, in fact found out about the movie looking for things he had starred in. Together with Harish Patel, the guys form a nice buddies group. Thandie Newton had a somehow decorative role, but she fits in nicely, and the kid is funny, and at that moment had funny teeth:) Light family movie for a Sunday afternoon or so. Liked it.

I actually wanted just to vote, but I cannot find it in a separate page from the review one. The film is hysterically funny, and it takes a while to understand what are they all about here. They took an older real movie, and using a plausible reason, got to the point where all the lines from the old movie are replaced by some comical lines the voices doing the characters managed to come up with. For me it seemed even more funny because it is familiar: I used to see dubbed movies in cinema and often the translators "comixed" them up as they invented lines just to keep up with the action. But this here is taking such a random act to the hilarious level, they contort their voices, they adapt the lines and you either watch glued to the screen to get every witticism, either laugh your pants out.

Fantastic show, mates, so far. It's quick and malicious, and we see at all times two sports-like broadcasters, who are making all the fun they possibly can out of this Pete's guy life. The main character is not at all innocent himself, he is somewhere near the types from Peep Show, managing to pull out some horrible social mishaps. They are all young and so the satire applies to the up to date trends of the 20-30 something, and the omniscient life-broadcasters are making sure to replay the most awkward scenes of every episode, in the way we would imagine Pete would replay them in his mind, if he had a conscience, which is yet doubtful, luckily for the humor we expect to see in the series. Very structured way of putting the fresh idea into a sitcom, so far, and a excellent provider of good laughs, especially if one is used to the sports shows, because this is how the series is intended to be. Thumbs up. And personally I do not agree to the comparison with Woody Allen. Maybe the technique per se, but not the overall atmosphere.

This felt like a breeze of fresh air, and it ambushes the viewer in a very good way. Taking place in a cold small town, I tended to put it on a strange "cold-far-away-god forgotten postmodern scenery" shelf, strange because this shelf contains Lost in translation, The girl in the café, Gigantic, Twilight and other seemingly unrelated movies. But The Vicious Kind is by far the most alive and vigorous movie out of these, in which the characters seem to be living very sincerely and intense, even against their own will. The humor is also genial, and the tenderness/passion that the love (or simply sex) story inspires is also an unexpected surprise. Loved this movie. The way one would appreciate a hot and tasty meal in a cold winter's day, after a mouthful of cold cucumber soup that the more pretend to be classy movies often serve. and i imagine the main character ended up to be Sully Sullivan from Nobody's Fool, the 1994 movie, played by Paul Newman.

For me the first seen episode was the first one of the second series, after which I just missed the "guys", so I tried watching the first series too. It is one of those friendly sitcoms with moments of absurd and good humor. Very pleasing. And also, for the category of sitcoms with old people, it is refreshingly clear-spoken, I can hear and get every joke. They are somewhere in the Grumpy Old Men (BBC series) area. Not at all lacks the jokes as another comment suggested. Keep it up, old guys!Roger Lloyd Pack is Owen from The Vicar of Dibley and this made me watch in the first place. Not at all Peep Show-y (which I also like, but which is a whole other dish), probably more like "Last of the Summer Wine", out of which I saw a few episodes. I had good laughs with this one, the only reason I see for others not liking it would be that they have a different sense of humor or they were fooled by the apparently slow pace of the action. But the comedy is not a speed-related matter.

This is unbelievable and unbearable, it reaches some new peaks of lame! I can't believe it was not commented as such by more users and I can't believe it scored a 6 out of 10 on IMDb! It is so prehistoric age of the cop movies and it hardly pulls out as a comic movie! The music stinks and it is so Not 2010! I hope this is not the beginning of a whole crappy movie era...The crazy villain who seems to rule the city and has no fear of the cops, the Latina - victim, beautiful and scared...what is the matter with these clichés of the early 80-s? I couldn't wait for the movie to end and I feel sorry for Bruce Willis, hey man, better enjoy your retirement than act in such chaotic remakes of all the old cop movies!