Reviews

The Mire is an excellent Polish language series. It's a three-part series of five or six episodes for each part. Each part tells a standalone story or stories but the same characters are featured throughout at different time periods. They are stories about investigations and about people. I found them to be very effectively told in a minimalist way. The subject matters are dark but treated with a restrained hand and not exploited visually. There are convincing flashbacks to events in earlier decades (1940s, 1960s) which shed light on current events and flesh out our understanding of the characters. The screenplay and camera work excel and the actors do their jobs. The stories and the relationships are interwoven but the overall picture comes to conclusion. I give the series 10.

This one really bothered me! Ji Jin Hee is one of my favorite actors and I couldn't stand to watch him in this series. I quit during episode four rather than watch these actors as enigmas that I couldn't stand to watch. The series is about the secrets beneath the facades. In this case the facades might have been androids as I wasn't able to detect what they care about. A mystery should make me curious about motivations and actions but this series is so devoid of energy that it became uncomfortable to watch. I'll give it a 2 for effort. It must have been exhausting for the actors to play androids.

I thought I should write because there was only one review available when I was trying to decide whether to watch the Thai series Tunnel. On Netflix it was available with subtitles, which I prefer compared to dubbing. This was my first Thai series and I think it is very well done. I enjoy stories about police investigations and these are good stories that proceed at just the right pace with just the right effects to stay interesting. I was very happy about the seamless inclusion of brief flashbacks to remind me of something said or done in a previous episode. The actors successfully create their own unique characters as well as comradery. There are clever plot twists, suspense, action and tender scenes that moved me. There was the advantage of watching another culture at work in another place, in this case a little different from other Asian movies I've watched. It was a pleasure to watch but I don't know if it will stand out in my memory tomorrow, so I'll give it an 8 out of ten.

So irritating! I watched 10 episodes and gave up because I couldn't believe I could stand to watch 6 more episodes of nothing particular happening. If you asked me to tell you the plot, I couldn't. What happens on screen is like a dream in which you meander here and there and when you wake up you wonder where you've been. There's no chemistry between the romantic leads and no discernible reason for their characters to claim to be in a relationship anyway. None of the characters make me wonder what happens to them in the last 6 episodes. What a waste of production efforts and my time. I'm on to the next South Korean drama on my list.

Others have commented on it being inappropriate to cast a petite woman to a role in which she pretends to be a king. I found the actress Park Eun-bin to be believable in her kingly attitude and command of a sword or bow. Scenes in which she is instantly perceived as a woman because her hair is down are silly because of course she would have adopted the male hair fashion of the time. The political story is a good one. The various romantic attachments failed to move me. The replays and replays and replays of "romantic" scenes between the primary lovers became irritating. A very strong theme in the overall story is friendship and I watched to the end for that.

It's a horror show and the horror is the movie. It's the guilty pleasure of watching a catastrophe where no one will be hurt. Why did these serious A-list actors agree to make this movie? At first I thought that comedians would have been better cast. But I decided it's an awful script, neither serious nor funny. It misses the mark between character and caricature. It misses the mark between satire and farce. Do make yourself a stiff drink and watch this movie! P. S. I never complain about a cuss word or two in a movie, but the F-word inappropriately and repeatedly appears in this one (on "live TV").

I watched four episodes about four different murders. I purposely did not say "murder mysteries" because the focus is on assembling data, not on exploring mysteries. The plots only seem to want to answer the question of "how far can we go this time?" We have to watch several murders in progress, apparently just because we can. The perpetrators and/or victims are not your usual citizens they are "voyeur," "hacker," "jihadist," "sadomasochist." Likewise, the members of the police unit don't have personalities, they are roles such as "single (widowed) father," "Muslim," "genius hacker," "homosexual." They seem to be acting in a rapidly paced and poorly written play! The conclusions to the murder stories also don't ring true, so what would be your reason for watching this??

Subtle: not obvious, and therefore difficult to notice (macmillan). If I were to tell you the plot of the movie The Power of the Dog in a few sentences you might say "that's preposterous." You might want to be invited to suspend your disbelief. I could not suspend my disbelief of key (subtle) elements of the movie. Benedict Cumberbatch succeeded in creating a believable if ambiguous character but I think there have been less subtle and more menacing cinematic depictions of "toxic masculinity" (mediaversity). Again quoting a professional critic, I could not believe in "the emotional violence" (NPR) he supposedly inflicts. The significance of the means of his "violence" were (subtly) hinted at but I was not convinced!

I think the greatest failure of the movie was in not convincing me of the character portrayed by Kirsten Dunst. The movie focuses in an obvious way on her supposed "frissons of fear" (the Guardian) inspired by her brother-in-law's pranks. Preposterous.

The filmmakers should have done more to tell a story and to help me believe in it.

The dialogue insinuates that they "have a passion for" food, but the characters in the movie's kitchen only seem to be "keeping their noses to the grindstone" as they assemble briefly glimpsed dishes that are whisked away to a solemn dining room. There seems to be no excitement in the kitchen, only drudgery. There seems to be no pride of accomplishment. There doesn't seem to be any satisfaction at the end of the day.

The kitchen revolves around the compulsion of a master chef who we are supposed to believe is equally loved for his genius and hated for his "bad boy" behavior by his peers. Bradley Cooper's deadpan at the heart of the story is a disappointment. This master chef does not seem enthusiastic about creating food, or about anything else. There is a scene in which he prepares breakfast in an associate's kitchen, in which we might have glimpsed joy driving his compulsion, but, instead, he seems to experience no pleasure. Additionally, the script mainly depicts behavior from him that is perfectionistic, narcissistic, manipulative, and bad tempered. I found it hard to fathom the respect and affection granted him by others in the script. And I kept expecting more than a very slight upbeat at the end of the story.

I do give kudos to Daniel Bruhl and to Matthew Rhys for creating affecting characterizations. Sienna Miller's performance was adequate for her task.

Child 44 is not a detective story.

Nor does it make any sense otherwise.

I watched the trailer here to be sure, and yes, this movie is advertised as the story of a search for a serial killer. It is not! I guesstimate that maybe one fifth of the storyline concerns police vs. a serial killer, and that storyline about chasing down a serial killer is very superficial, in which deductions are made as if "out of the blue," and the killer is apprehended quickly. No suspense whatsoever.

The main thrust of the "plot" is just as silly: a policeman (Tom Hardy) is a hero, is then disgraced and demoted (for dubious reasons), becomes a hero again and is promoted. Since the thrust of the movie portrays a regime's iron control over its citizens, it's illogical and even laughable that our "hero" should be reinstated after going way off the grid to pursue a killer against orders. That's just one prime example of this movie's nonsense!

Another example: the character that Gary Oldman plays doesn't serve any purpose.

Considering that the neither of the two story lines makes any sense, I'm inclined to believe that neither does the depiction of life at a certain time in soviet Russia.

I agree with reviewer John Wayne from United States: "Citizen X" (1995) is an excellent movie about a search for a serial killer under a soviet regime: I recommend it.

I'd like to respond to reviewer rchoyle who asked, " I wonder if anyone else will be hating on these women?" Yes! What was everyone involved with this movie project thinking??

First, these three actresses and the screenplay failed to convince me that these characters have ever been "best friends." They all appear to be self-absorbed and to have no feeling for any body else whatsoever. Their chatter chatter is vacuous and its irresponsible sexual content is disturbing.

These girls could have had "stupid" written on their foreheads. These are the sort of people you might want to strangle, not root for! They go "camping" on a deserted island with no apparent thought for their physical safety overall. They invite three male strangers to join them for supper on the beach. One of them then proceeds to converse about her past casual sex. By this time, it's all too clear that there are no "good guys" and that this screenplay will bring out even worse in everybody.

If you don't have any particular reason to see this movie, you should skip it. I was expecting a celebration of the music, but there is little joy to balance the dreariness in this film.

The acting is adequate, so I don't think it would be fair to pick on the actors; the screenplay is dull. I was looking at my watch towards the end.

Yes, indeed, my foot was tapping on its own volition during performances of their songs! But there were few of those scenes.

The movie focuses so much on the hard knocks that I'm left wondering, "Was it all about the money?" Not how I expected to leave the theater.

I went to this movie to see Godzilla, and I hardly ever saw him. When I did see him, he looked clumsy and facially not as attractive as previous incarnations. That and an anti- climax spoiled the movie for me, in spite of some good 3D effects.

I was annoyed by several cuts of scenes that caused me to wonder, "what just happened??" Also, the spoof of 1950's flicks doesn't quite come off.

What will stand out in my mind will be the 3 forces of nature battling it out (briefly) oblivious to the smashed city under their feet. Maybe that will be worth it to you.

David Fincher (director) and Steven Zaillian (screenplay) accomplish a solid, if limited, vision of Stieg Larsson's internationally acclaimed novel. If that required making a dark cartoon of the title character, she's an unusually interesting one that apparently appealed to the filmmakers: the underdog/heroine with ready-made (by Larsson) makeup, wardrobe, and "attitude." With a personal story that could be tweaked to "keep it simple" but is, by its nature, compelling. No worries about a sequel; "Lisbeth's" story is tweaked into movie-style completion in this film. Something about international high finance to gratify "Lisbeth" before she rides into the sunset on her motorcycle.

If Rooney Mara's acting struck me as robotic, where's the harm? "Lisbeth" = "tough;" robots = "tough." To add a little - realism, is it? - she doesn't have to act just a little "vulnerable," she just moves through the plot element emphasized by the filmmakers to imply that she is, a little. Within their vision, a glaringly unrealistic element, in my opinion. And her halo slips while she viciously performs an unnecessary cruelty. But we suspend our better judgements when we are watching a cartoon, anyway. No big deal.

Tweak the internationally acclaimed plot a little more, and the respected investigative reporter, "Mikael"/Daniel Craig becomes the (surprisingly well acted) perfect foil, an absent-minded professor type who bumbles his way through his part in an investigation while our heroine saves the day. (To make sure we don't miss his bumbling, Stellan Skarsgård's character calls attention to his idiotic behavior, chalking it up to human foibles). No point in throwing out the investigation of a decades-old mystery completely, as it adds its own "spice" to the titillating mix. Besides, it's a ready-made (by Larsson) way to bring in "Mikael"/Daniel to elicit "Lisbeth"/Rooney's "vulnerability." But no need to dwell on any details of why/how two seemingly unlikely, previously unacquainted people manage to solve an "unsolvable" mystery. (BTW, Chris Plummer overacts his part: he brings poignancy and gravitas to this throwaway "sub"plot).

I did mind the film editing, which unbelievably won the 2012 Oscar. But if you're already familiar with this story and you keep your wits about you, or if you use mind-enhancing drugs, you should be able to follow along some of the rushed through, chopped up plot elements chosen by the filmmakers to sort-of-include in this tale.

Overall, if you don't find the caricaturization of a punk "tough cookie" to be offensive, you should find this movie enjoyable. Sort of like a "real-life" Batman ensemble, with very nasty sex. If you might prefer characterization over caricaturization, and a story of two excellent and complementary detectives, the Swedish film of TGWTDT is for you.

Well, I liked this movie. I found it interesting - very tense - with an actual (over-the top) plot that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Sam Riley, as the main protagonist, really held it together. I personally got invested in his character, and I was not "deflated" in the end, as some reviewers seem to have been.

I enjoyed the vignettes of some of the various characters' backgrounds. Seems to me those are important aspects to the story. This is a diverse group of individuals, which made it interesting to me. All of the cast members effectively contributed to the mix. (Maybe Rourke was a bit over-the-top). I enjoyed seeing Statham in a less in-your-face role than usual, although I had some problems interpreting whatever across-the-pond accent he employed this time around.

I did find one significant plot element (only one??) suspicious, but by that time I had suspended my disbelief, was invested in Sam Riley's character, and was enjoying the ride.

The theme of this movie is "intrigue." There are layers of protagonists with mysterious agendas. Not all the t's are crossed, but the main story holds firm.

Which is the story of a reluctant band of experienced mercenaries plotting to kill, one by one, several British citizens as payback for something they did in a British skirmish somewhere in the Middle East. Each kill has to be cleverly disguised as an "accident," and evidence of each successful plot has to be provided to the "client." To top it off, another layer of protagonists senses what is going on, and plots to stop said plotting. Intriguing, indeed!

I still wonder what DeNiro is doing in this movie, but he contributes a great character to it. Statham is in-your-face as usual, with brains. Clive Owen mysteriously disappointed me, as I generally enjoy his work. He struck me as weak in this role; like a thorn in my side, that kept bothering me and still does. The supporting cast is excellent, and the plot carries the day. Very enjoyable "thinking man's" action movie.

This action movie keeps you on the edge of your seat. The usual series of car chases and shootouts. The addition of a "foot chase" is a little bit different, as is the background setting in Capetown, South Africa. I say "background setting" because this movie could have been made anywhere; not much effort is made to include the city as a "character" in the movie.

But as you leave the theater, you wonder: what the heck was that about?? The plot isn't even interesting! Jason Bourne this is not!

Besides all that action, it IS worth witnessing Denzel Washington's excellent efforts to create a character that makes sense (it doesn't). He looks like a Shakespearean actor in the midst of an amateur play. Ryan Reynolds does create a character, although I found it not quite believable that a rookie government agent could be quite so Terminator-like in his determination to carry out his mission; he never falters. Which conflicts quite a bit with the student/mentor interplay with Denzel's character that is superficially presented for our consideration. The other actors serve adequately, but they only manage to create cookie cutter outlines in a silly plot.

It's a good ride, but a letdown in the end.

I, too, looked forward to this movie and I, too, hated it. I'm sure it is a move-making "masterpiece." There is not one element that I can identify that detracts from its total bleakness, which I found extremely disturbing. The movie is a complete downer. The question in my mind as I left the theater was: why did this apparently very talented team of people make this movie??

The theme is set when this band are characterized as misfits of one kind or another by way of Neeson's introductory narration. What was the point of that? After their plane crashes, they conclude that their employer used them up, and then threw them away; they don't expect that any money will be spent on a search and rescue mission. What was the point of that? And then, what? They decide that to "just keep moving" is a purpose in life? Sparing a few fond thoughts for their loved ones as they move along? Was there a point to that??

I thought this was supposed to be about wolves? The wolves are the least bad thing this movie sucks you into!

Fie on the critical quote on the DVD jacket, "gripping, evocative, and deeply engaging." There's also a Special Feature (I didn't bother) entitled "Contagion: How a Virus Changes the World." Huh? Change?? It would be a stretch to claim that any of the (surviving) characters "changed," let alone "the World."

It becomes obvious less that half-way through this movie that the "plot" has nowhere to go. It's not a "plot," it's a chronicle as "engaging" as reading one of those old-fashioned newspaper articles that would tell you "who, what, where, when, and why."

The Jude Law character makes no sense at all, and Matt Damon is as flat as I've ever seen him. Everyone else seems to "muster up," for all the good it did them (and me). Overall, the acting provided the One Good Thing about this movie. But not enough of a good thing for you to bother!

This is an excellent screen play. I definitely want to see more of J.C. Chandor's work (writer and director). It could have been a stage play; the "action" is in the drama of the dialog, delivered with not a single misstep by the excellent cast. My husband asked me, "which of these characters stood out for you?" I had to say, "all of them."

Even what is not said becomes evocatively transparent. This is an acute human drama acted out "in the middle of the night" (for the most part) by very courteous, very sophisticated guys (and a doll) in custom-made suits in their polished offices (for the most part) on the top floors of a New York City skyscraper equipped with a helipad for the Most Important People among them. It seems to me that everything you might have heard, or think, about Wall Street - good and bad - is at least touched upon by the characters as they interact (but rarely preach about to each other). They're very honest and they're very stoic. You might say that their lives have been all about the appearances. But they've figured out that it's all about to crash. What will they, individually and collectively, decide to do?

I was reluctant to perform the not pleasurable act of writing about this movie, but I realized that I needed to get it off my chest! Yes, you should see it for its weirdness value. But you'll feel frustrated.

It's like two movies in one. The first half is bewildering and boring. The only actor who seems to enjoy his character, right off, is Harrison Ford as a bossy, grumpy geezer. Daniel Craig plays his usual wooden soldier (throughout). Olivia Wilde seems present in body (yes, nice) but absent in spirit. The others seem to have "roles," but not "characters. There is a scene in the middle in which a posse beds down for the night, during which I nearly gave up.

One thing that is still a mystery to me is why these old-west humans were consistently made to appear less fazed than I was by unimaginable events and explanations. But the action picks up in "part 2," during which "events" are explained, in a unimaginative, narrative fashion. Actors settle in to their characters. Olivia begins to shine.

More could have been made of the contrast between alien technology and the clubs, bows/arrows, and revolvers of the Old West. These particular humans don't use their brains! The culmination of this movie's events is both satisfying and disappointing.

This is such a forgettable movie that I nearly forgot to write a review.

I was disappointed, because as I recall it, the novel was excellent. It seems to me that Hollywood might have "dumbed it down." In my opinion, there is no suspense in this movie, as "the bad guy" quickly reveals himself. There is no subsequent tension between the two protagonists. This might have been a fault in the acting of one of them, or from a lack of tension between the two actors, or from the screen writing. W. H. Macy's role and Frances Fisher's role seem like throwaways in spite of being pivotal to the plot, and since they are both excellent actors, I have to assume this results from ineffective screen writing and/or editing. And the movie does seem "choppy" to me. Scenes turn up seemingly out of nowhere, and not in a way that made me think, "aha," more like "huh?"

I'd heard good things about McConaughey's acting in the title role, and I don't think I can quibble with that. I believe my "quibble" is with the fact that his character seems like one man in the beginning of the movie (let's describe him as a "lawyerly con-man," McConaughey very effective), then becomes a visibly challenged man, then appears back to his assured self again, "all's right" with his world. Did he learn anything? That part must have ended up on the cutting room floor.

In the novel, for example, a relatively "minor" character (as presented in the movie) makes a dramatic career change as a result of occurrences. This movie presents us with "facts," treated not as momentous "events."

(FYI, I didn't view part 1, and based on my experience with part 2, I don't care to!) This movie has no redeeming value, except that the acting should meet your requirements, if you are interested in a gore fest that has no heart, no humor, and no point. These "characters" aren't all that sympathetic, though.

I should have read the "fine print;" I mistakingly thought that it would be fun to view characters confronting zombies in the confined spaces of an airplane up-in-the-air. (I must have misunderstood the subtitle, "Terminal," LOL). The characters mostly confront the zombies in a so-called-working-part-of-an-airline-terminal; in this movie, that equates to a setting that never seems to make any sense. Also turns out, a comprehensible setting is one of those mysterious things that are necessary to instill sweet horror in this viewer.

There's no particular suspense, since the characters aren't all that sympathetic.

It's just gory but, basically, boring. Unless you might enjoy meaningless mayhem. I prefer my mayhem with a little suspense or a little heart or a little humor.

This movie includes interesting dynamics among the characters, and an interesting overall plot.

I don't know why many reviewers here claim to be upset about "underdeveloped" characters and/or or plot elements. Having just viewed this film, I'm not feeling "left hanging." The above comments must refer to the "side stories," told through vignettes, of two police officers' lives, effectively conveying that they are vulnerable humans, trying to do a job in spite of their personal and unrelated hurts and a job that, in itself, is sometimes hurtful to them. We're also offered vignettes of cops helping cops, as friends. In my opinion, those "back stories" add a thoughtful contrast to the villain who pursues his hatred of cops, and adds depth and interest to the overall story.

All of the actors understatedly, and therefore all the more effectively, inhibit their characters. Exceptions to the "understatedly" rule are the ever-bold Jason Statham (of course) and Aidan Gillen as an annoyingly cocky killer. The more reserved characters hold their own and support the thrust of the story, but these two dominate it, to good effect.

I can't close without awarding a star to Ned Dennehy, who very effectively portrays a slime-ball who seems to haunt the border between "polite society" and capitulation to homelessness.

BTW, it's a British movie, but if I hadn't been able to follow along, I assume that I could have resorted to American-English subtitles :-). I should also mention that there are "moral ambiguities" in this move; if you's rather not deal with those, stay away. Oh, and my husband (the expert on that topic), says there is plenty of "action."

Weird movie.

It's got an interesting Tolkienish setting going for it, the plot is pretty good (although it drags a bit here and there), and the actors create characters that you can tell apart ;-).

The weird part is that the eerie settings don't seem to phase the characters, and that they all seem so dispassionate, overall. I get that Cage and Perlman are war-weary crusaders, but surely what they come across in this movie should turn a hair, and yet it doesn't seem to. Even when they are swashbuckling, they seem to display less passion than I do when confronting my Thanksgiving turkey. Nevertheless, they are valiant until the ending, hooray.

And a very thrilling ending it is! Probably worth your while.