Reviews

Well, what DID Jennifer do?

We don't really get to know.

She somehow set in motion that three men with (one, two, three?) guns could enter her house that she shared with her parents.

Through her ex-boyfriend she got in contact with them. So he's a co-conspirator. We gather. Because there was a short bit about text messages between her and him.

She unlocked the front door. She lied to the police.

She concocted stories, and phone-harrassed her ex.

That's what she did. Oh, and not go to uni but telling her parents she did. What she did instead was not revealed, though the officer SAID he'd like to know.

When did she contact Homeboy (home invader no. 1), how many times, did they communicate afterwards.....no details given at all. No timeline, just Day 1, 2, etc. Until she is arrested.

The police interviews were interesting, but I don't need Netflix for those. Some input of officers etc. Involved was interesting, therefore 5 stars.

But not worth watching the whole thing for. There was no real background, nothing went in depth, nothing new revealed at all.

It was sketchy, superficial, unnecessary. 48 Hours does it better. Much better.

I watched this just because.

I was aware that Netflix wants to show off their star after Stranger Things.

I like adventure fairytales, not a fan of Kristen Stewart in Snow White and the Huntsman (not a fan of Kristen Stewart in anything, as she's a bad actress), but it's suppised to be fun, I even liked Mirror Mirror, etc.

Did not expect this to draw on The Princess Bride, I mean I loved seeing Robin Wright, and the stuff they used was non-intrusive. Noticeable, like the opening credits, the wedding location, felt unnecessary and cheap.

The story as a general idea is good.

And the actual adventure stuff is quite entertaining, the Dragon being the best, that was simply ace.

The most horrible parts are the beginning and the end.

Oh my g bad acting. Oh my g bad dialogue. Not all the time, and it is unfathomable to me how they could have AngelaBasset act so badly, but they did. Something must have gone wrong with direction. Even awful dialogue can be portrayed better. I cannot explain it, it's just so so bad.

'That's not a reason to marry!' she says. Of course it is my dear. What a silly woke remark to put in. Anybody can marry for whatever reasons, financial and security reasons are very 2024 too. Unnecessary, and wrong!, teaching.

The editing was off a few times, so wrong that it was annoying. When she - acting awfully - wondered whether the prince might be nice. When she jumped in the cave. A few other times. Stuff cut out / left out that we needed for flow.

The getting to know the Prince was nicely done, she had too much lipstick on, but whatever.

She's psychic all of a sudden and KNOWS that the three dead dragon babies exclude the possibility of the Dragon having killed people before that? Doesn't make sense.

The end of the Cave scene, she could have told about the blood much sooner, that was completely unnecessary and annoying in its stupidity.

I was entertained in the middle bit, I was awed by the Dragon CGI, I did not mind some of the silly stuff.

But the bad beginning and the worse ending detract hugely. Pity. It's like two different scripts and two different directors were at work. One for the wooden, horrible dialogue and one for action. Maybe there were, I'm not interested enough to find out. Rob Reiner it wasn't, that's for sure!

A totally naive and insecure student adores this TV host / professor.

That sentence alone should disqualify her.

Or be used for a different kind of movie.

Journalism is stories, just like everything else in life.

But most of all, surprise surprise, journalism is a business, it is stories used to sell ads, twisted stories, one-sided stories, tabloid stories, propaganda stories, fantasy stories. Who knew. Cui bono.

In today's woke world, how is that btchy professor even a thing?

And why would I care for an egotistical jealous criminal student with no morals? Cry me a river your 'story' got 'stolen', learn your lesson: read the fine print before you sign something. 'I'm so special' - glad that bubble got burst quickly.

If this is supposed to be a character study it failed. Nothing new to be gained here. Not even truth, whatever that elusive, many-facetted thing may be . Only a shadow of yesteryear's news. That hammam monologue was so Hollywood it hurt.

The ending is not redemptive, it's more cliché and more ego trip and predictable, totally unconvincing and not satisfying. Any second grade editing proofcheck would show that the recording was fake. But who cares, as everything is. That's the message, then. As I said, surprise surprise, yesteryear's news.

The kid was great, and the roommate was good as well. A glimpse of reality. The rest was yawn.

I watched knowing a serious writer writes a 'fake' that bestsells and problems ensue.

The beginning was ace, and much much more acerbic than all of the rest of the movie. Sadly.

Because the rest of the movie is the story of a writer and his family, that writer's romance, and that writer's 'scam' with the 'ghetto' book that sells because it's what sells at the moment.

The critique stays on the surface. His artistic 'struggle' stays a mystery, because it only comes across as arrogant. We have no idea what his 'serious' books are about, so all we have is 'well-spoken' to 'ghetto-slang'. That is not enough to make me care about why something sells more numbers. Also, I don't care that much. I don't like whiners, and he was whining after the non-whining, straight-talking beginning.

The family has it all. Suicide (depression?), Alzheimer's, a beach house, a funny, abortion clinic doctor but quickly dead sister, a straight to promiscuous funny gay brother who is a plastic surgeon, a devoted housekeeper who finds love when it's convenient, a female idealistic public defender.

I didn't mind it that much, the acting was top notch, and the dialog was good. But it was a bit much. If meant as satire in its tableau, then it wasn't made clear. Too earnest in its portrayal. Too woke, and woke, as I read somewhere, is boring.

The film has a lot of good vibes, and it's a nice story told well, entertaining, funny at times but not a fullblown comedy imo.

It stayed superficial and light, and the societal criticism was so thin it was practically a no-show.

In the end all I take away is the female writer's comment that 'Potential is what people see when they think that what's in front of them isn't good enough'. Bam, he got called out!

One sentence of true meaning. The rest was playing with tropes.

While interesting, the docu-series is very repetitive and jumps from shocking high crime to everyday life for the kids, which was really frustrating. Not that that's not interesting, but it was edited wrong imo.

Rena Chynoweth, angelic features, interviewed on the BBC, then details her shooting of a stranger to her because she was ordered to. Wow. That really was the most shocking part of all, how she could sit there and act the victim. Double jeopardy should not be applicable in those cases. You admit to murder? So what that you got off at your trial through perjury (all lying in court is perjury imo), you go to jail for that! Of COURSE you had a choice. I am really and deeply appalled.

Evil Ervil got what was overdue, he got off easy in the end.

The following murders are horrible, committed by disturbed people. It was really a deal with the devil having them convicted due to a co-conspirator confessing, who could have stopped it all before it happened.

We all get brainwashed from birth onwards. The society and family we get born into determine our view of the world. Good luck to all children. But especially to those that are taught they are chosen.

I always wanted to know about this group, kind of didn't really follow the news when it happened, so I was interested.

It's not a badly done documentary production-wise.

But it does not really shed light on anything. Really. Not anything. Not even the members that left and realized they were duped were heard as to how and why they did and thought that. Very dissatisfying.

I don't mind the respect given to everybody, and actually think they sure went out voluntarily and peacefully, good for them. All the other after-life fairy-tales that are religions demand you stick it out, this human life, be good and nice snd productive and follow what the religious leader asks of you so they have power and you the promise of life after death. Whatever tickles your fancy.

But the word 'narcissists' was missing. And 'delusion'. And 'wanting to be SPECIAL and CHOSEN'. Why do people follow others, why do they choose to regard them with awe if they're telling their fairy-tales? Were they unloved? Everybody wants to feel loved and welcome and accepted and likes connection and wants to belong. So join a reading club or bake sale or whatever. Not meant in a derogatory way at all.

But man they wanted to feel special. They're glowing with being besotted by their own specialness, THEY know the TRUTH and THEY are near the most special people. I'm sorry, this has nothing to do with being educated, because they sure as heck switched off their brains.

Question everything, even yourself, and especially others who claim to be special.

Maybe some are just followers and are lovin it. Go ahead, believe away, off yourself, whatever. Better that than doing it Daybell-style and killing the kids...

You can put it all into perspective and offer explanations and interpretations and still be respectful.

Which self-delusions are not harmful?

Does having followers always lead to a misuse of power and control? Which sicknesses of minds fall prey on both sides, leader and believer? At least ask the questions!

The daughter saying her parents loved her? No, they didn't. Love doesn't leave (not like this, by choice!). Love wants to keep harm from your children. And the parents cannot claim depression for their suicide. It was all about them.

There was no real insight into anything, and that made this a bit frustrating.

Cult leaders are all narcissists, every rule they implement tells something about them. No sex? Means they have a problem with sex. No family contact? Means....you get the drift. I'm so special!!! - inferiority inside. I am chosen! - I am nothing. I'm going to live forever! - I have a problem with death. Etc etc etc.

So, I now know what they were about, but not who they were. Only who they wanted to be. I know how they died, but not really much about how they lived.

Pity.

This was a bit of a disjointed documentary.

I don't mind flashbacks, they are useful when you have testimonials after a certain event.

But I prefer a linear storytelling. It was never quite ckear when which interview was taking place.

Also, there was too much room given to the praising of Mother God, it gets old real quickly and does not add anything to the story.

And the story is a bleak one.

But as long as they're happy believing whatever they choose to believe I say let'em. Selling potions online? Not illegal. Financing their addiction lifestyle? Why not. Letting yourself die instead of going to a doctor? Every person's right. Worshipping someone as their saviour? Billions, no trillions and trillions of people have done that since the beginning of time and are still doing it. At least these people only cussed at the unenlightened, that is their biggest 'crime'.

What was missing was a bit of context, how many people were actual 'followers', one YT livestream showed 1k subscribers to that channel, so nothing big.

No fraud detected, the money guy took the money, good for him. People paid for services and goods, that's the economy.

And it WAS interesting to see a real dead person, it should be mandated watching. Death is natural and nothing to be afraid of.

The fantasy was just another fantasy, at least no children were killed as the Daybells and Alex Cox did.

We all are free to live our lives as we please and believe as we choose. But I was not that interested in their beliefs, yet got more than I wanted.

In that way a fail, because too long and falsely focussed.

I love rom coms.

When they're good.

This has a halfway decent start, cookie cutter but hey, it's a rom com, I'm ready to go with it.

Sadly, it lacks in couple chemistry, and the lying is not very empowered, is it?

I get the first lie, it's harmless, playing into prejudices, playing pretend while on a transAtlantic flight.

But she had many opportunities afterwards to clear up that pretence. Without any consequences.

I also found the 'poor girl gets rich boy' poorly done. Her character is weak, and that is a bit revolting. No shame in being an intern after college, no shame in hoping to get a paid job, or have dreams. All this out in the open would NOT have been detrimental to the rom com imo. Just a different angle, different storyline, BETTER storyline.

The male lead is weak as well, I really have no clue what they see in each other. She is mean and condescending most of the time. He must be one of those types that like that. No shame in being a nice girl, either.

Stealing salt and pepper shakers or wearing your boss's dress without permission do not give her an edge, it just makes her cheap.

Suddenly they kiss passionately. Where did that come from? She did not tell him the truth, nor after, on their many outings and kisses. Badly done, Ana!

After that I lost all interest, because she doesn't deserve anything good coming to her.

One of the Mean Girls even directly admitted she made sth up when asked about it. Learn from her! Instead she's a beeutch to the unsuspecting male lead. Because of HER lies. Very unsympathetic. I relish her downfall. I envision her naked through King's Landing. Satisfying.

Her redemption is not of her own doing but facilitated by forgiving eccentrics.

Marisa Tomei is a blast, as is Lena Olin and the male cast except wussy wuss.

All in all, the plotline is weak, the lead character is weak and misguided, and the ending is not cute, it's weak.

Slow build, nothing much explained, a lonely writer at 42 (you know, the answer to life, the universe and everything else...) is thinking of selling his childhood home, looks at some childhood pictires, then a fire alarm, he goes outside his highrise, goes back up, a drunken man at his door wanting to be invited in, not happening, he takes a train to his hometown, and finds his dead parents aged as when they died 30 years ago and they talk, he goes back to London, drunk guy on the grass looking up to his window, he invites him in now, he's gone off booze, they have sex and awkward relationship building, he visits his parents, back and forth a few times, what is real what isn't, the trauma of losing them clearly still an issue, he realises it, lets them go, comes back and finds out his boyfriend is a ghost.

Wham bam thank you man.

I truly enjoyed him with his parents, the way they interact, a fairytale of 'what would happen if they were here today', he gets his issues out and healed. And still it is treated like an affliction. By him. Dude, pain is inevitable. Most of us have trauma. Suffering is optional. You're fortyeffintwo, therapy was available the last 30 years, well better late than never I guess, even if it's just imaginary.

Him being awkward with the biyfriend was ok too, 40-year-old-virgin way more fun though.

Everything was okay, top acting, original story.

But then the ending ... which I had suspected at some point but had discarded as too cruel ... really makes all his efforts null and void, for, yes, he overcame his parents' death, but now his fate is being in a relationship with a dead guy. Effin fantastic. A Christmas song (well, the video makes it one) as theme song, but I still feel depressed at the end. Yeahyeah I get it our imagination is real, but I thought the film was about moving on from trauma, not 'one trauma worked through: check, on to life within the next!' Silly. Not really helpful or uplifting, is it.

And 'Build' somehow made its way into the otherwise gay singers playlist, love the song, but Paul Heaton is not gay. No matter of course, it was just strange.

I'd rather watch this than lots of other stuff on offer.

This is as real as a movie can be real about a twenty-something influencer trying to be more real.

It's a metaphor, and yet it isn't.

It's about today's reality, but it leaves out a lot of good. It's a spotlight, and Billy's in it.

There's definitely not a lot of love in Billy's world.

I guess that's what he realises and acts upon. Not in the nicest, clearest way. But when you're drowning, you have to kick off everything holding you under. And that might even be your friends, or partners. Especially when they do neither see nor ask nor care about your breathing difficulties.

I liked the red-pilling, George-Carlin like 'saying it as it is' while making it into a self-help thing where people are thrown back onto themselves (if they choose to let it happen), and it leads to his second-hand 'fantasy' spiel working for HIM second-handedly, and he goes back to his source.

Life. Go figure (it out).

A bit too arrogant at times, overplaying a bit, still the lead is excellent. His girlfriend is too.

The writer/director acting (double meaning totally intended and factual) as a kind of Greek choir, or friendly (while not being overly friendly) reflection was not really gelling into the story character-wise, she was too cool and lifeless for me.

All in all a recommend, glad I gave it a shot despite the imdb rating. Think for myself, I can! (and apparently I turned into Yoda!)

A movie that lets you breathe.

Wonderful cinematography, not just because of Fuerteventura, every shot had deliberation and beauty.

A movie that takes the time, how very luxurious, how relaxing, how satisfying.

You wonder how it will turn out, there is tension underneath, and not everything is explained.

(why did Ryan sleep with her, why did he allow photographs, had he planned to kill her anyway).

I don't like French films or French acting, so Fanny Ardant and her role as it was written was a redundant nuisance, the only bad thing in a good movie.

The double twist at the end was not what I had expected, but also not surprising or shocking as it happened. More like consequence, and an ending to things. A man does a job, and then does something personal. Hard to explain. He had lived a little after having forgotten to live, and then he avenged the killing of the person that taught him how to. And then he ends it.

This is for people that like to watch good cinematography, beautiful landscape, and a story unfold, with foreboding and misgivings, but where the lead character stays strong. My take on it.

And it had such a nice beginning.

Until they started talking.

And they never stop talking.

, All very woke with her initialising casual sex and him wanting to get to know her first. Ha-ha. Lame.

Thing is, it doesn't stay light-hearted. It turns out to be 'let's tell each other all about our sex lives / partners up to now.' How boring. And how dysfunctional they both were and are. What gives us any hint that their union would succeed? Nothing, that's what. Just because they told each other? That's very blue-eyed.

Him not mentioning his daughter really was a low blow and ruined the movie. And listen how cute he is with his kid. Totally unbelievable. Then he washes off his sins in the ocean and is reborn to start the first meaningful relationship of his life? Good luck with that. She should have run, but I guess she still likes lost causes.

They're nice enough and easy on the eye, he a much better actor than her.

Not recommended.

Selfish, clueless millennials belly-button gazing with nothing cute about it. And nothing fun. And nothing real, or really honest. Pretend / pretentious.

I don't mind slow, I don't mind silent, I don't mind sad losers if they have redeeming qualities, as he has with his grandma.

Everybody's gone, he slowly gets it, but when he gets to a tunnel through the Alps that is clogged he stays there; switch to the future, who knows how much later.

A) There is more than one tunnel through the Alps. Apparently the big vanishing happened during the night, so not that much traffic / cars etc. Blocking the roads. There are road passes over the mountains as well. Just sayin'. The Mediterranean is reachable!

B) Farming. For real? He lets one dog free with tragic consequences, two horses in the tunnel that just trot off, but now he has 1 cold blood horse, chickens, 1 goat. All held captive for some inexplicable reason. Dominion, I guess. Supermarkets have cans galore, pasta never goes bad, neither does rice, etc etc etc, trees give fresh fruit... whatever. His thing is being master of the only living creatures left. He has NO dog, although there must be plenty around that weren't locked in. An own dog would have saved the little lamb from the other dog, eh?

C) What is that where he lives??? There's villas galore on offer, cabins too if you want nature. Farms with plenty of animals (most of which starved without humans to feed them or set them free...). Okay, you want to build your own house, I get it, but again, why keep animals, and if, why not at least in pairs or groups??!! This is supposed to be a regression into old farmsteading? Extremely unrealistic. With electricity and flowing water at least! Silly, and stupid.

D) He's so sufficient but cannot treat his dogbite, or whatever that's supposed to be. Where there's an Aldi there's a pharmacy somewhere! Just sayin'.

E) The young sexy woman, wherever she came from. Oh my. His nurse, and chicken soup cook. Cause you need to kill an animal to treat a cold. No talking, no questions. At least she has a camper, that's cool, and smart. No more dog, cause apparently he is on a mission to kill all dogs left.

That is where I stopped watching. I don't want to know what happens. I am already bored and annoyed enough.

Until the silly and unnecessary farmsteading it was a good indie film.

I was willing to get involved in the story, but there was no story, just stuff happening, most of it unexplained, most of it silly and ridiculous, not shocking at all, just boring.

I rewrote it in my head to make it make a little more sense, as the crumbs we are told and shown have so many holes they're sieves.

He read about Saltburn, saw pictures, wanted to go there, yes, maybe already making plans to own it. THAT'S why he fixates on Felix (the 'happy'), recognising him for who he is. He wants to BE him, that's what the silly sexual stuff is about, unification, amalgamation with the desired natural born status, looks, etc.

Thing is, this was all nothing. This was not a film about a psychopath, because that is shown in a 30 second collage towards the end, motivation never explained. Are we supposed to think it's jealousy? Bit lame. All we got up to that point is that he is a manipulator and a liar. The 'twist' is neither surprising nor shocking, it just takes you completely out of the film, because it's not gelled right. Several different movies and plotlines, and at the end it's an uninteresting mess.

We are introduced to Oliver as a too straight nerd who wants to be part of the in-crowd. Okay, so we tag along, even believing that Felix likes him (because he's not a fanboy).

As soon as we get to Saltburn the film loses credibility. Too much, too brash, too over-the-top, too silly, too boring.

Story not told well, whatever it was. I sure don't care.

I just watched it because it was new.

It starts into chaos, nothing is explained until episode three I think.

Nice idea, elite chef wants to save his brother's beef sandwich shop after that chaotic, addicted brother shot himself.

So it seems to be about family, food, trauma, team work.

But Everything is dysfunctional. The family, the friends, the kitchen, the team, the elite chef, the new help coming in.

I live in a different universe. One in which people are friendly to strangers, one in which people at least try to communicate with respect and look whether the other person understands what you're saying.

I don't mind swearing, I don't mind rough jokes, I don't mind shouting now and then, for loudness' sake for example.

This show is not enjoyable. There is conflict, disrespect, meanness, lack of communication, and on top of it the idea that elite chefs can cook better than millions and millions and millions of fabulous home cooks. Ridiculous. Elitism. Unimportant on top of it.

The acting is ok I guess, but they're all acting like children or teenagers caught in rebellion phase. Very exhausting, and annoying after some time.

The first season ended with the money found very late because of a letter that was for some reason never found before (cleaning WAS an issue, yuck!), and hidden again by the finder. So the first season drama was completely superfluous.

And then - THEN! - they close the neighbourhood place with the cool retro video games, where the elite chef added to the quality of the food (did not say new ideas or tastes are bad...), and want to open a Michelin star kitchen... why would I care about that?

I don't, so I stopped watching after S02Ep03.

Because the characters are not likeable enough. Because fake, avoidable conflicts are set up.

And it's not very funny at all.

... and it hasn't been a good plot, a good script, a good film, or even idea...

Without GPS, the film crashlands on the beach, to die there, with a watch TELLING the viewer not to waste their precious lifetime on this, time is fleeting!

It's not a Friend-ly film.

It's got top production, but stupid people doing stupid things, that got annoying fast.

The snoozefest turns into a comedy somewhere after the half-time mark, my laughs were directed at me mostly, in order to get SOME entertainment from it.

The Tesla scene was fun, and I actually liked Kevin Bacon's part.

Other than that we have rude New Yorkers being rude and stupid. But, being close to Long Island, we learn from the movie that therein lies the advantage, find an unlocked apocalypse bunker, et voilà, problem solved.

It will be there for you!

Oh, and investment bankers can see into the future, finally a use to them! But who are they telling? No-one, or the rich clients. Ha-ha.

What a boring, pretentious movie with unlikeable people doing mostly nothing but talking nonsense the whole time, when they choose to do something it's just stupid. And boring.

It is NOT about today's America. It may want to be, but it's just not.

May have worked as a dark satire, but this movie is really nothing.

I have nothing for or against Pamela Anderson, I've known of her through the decades, I have nothing whatsoever against nudity (we're all naked under our clothes...), I read Nikki Sixx's book a while ago, I came upon this reading her son initiated it.

Oh, I do see her for a few seconds when surfing TV channels and she's renovating her house.

I should have known from that that I might find the long white see-through dresses slightly annoying, and the sweaters and blankets (so it's cold?) always NOT covering one shoulder. Hey, do garden work in whatever garb you fancy, but I cannot help but feel that the choice made was for presentation purposes. Playing with her image. Consciously. Not wearing a bulky sweater and baggy pants. Look how sexy I still am, how innocent in always white, a ghost from the nineties.

So this is my first problem, I cannot not notice the conscious costume choices, along with the performance in the costume.

And so I sense falsehood, not 100 % genuineness.

Or it is just a simple mind giving a simple account of her life and the choices she made. A bit boring, and apart from the criminal abuse she had to go through as a child, which should be prosecutable, I found myself not overly caring.

What is she complaining about? Hollywood lies? No happy ever after? Cry me a river, tale as old as time, grow up, you're old enough.

Voicemail to the director (?): 'I'm just gonna ramble. I'm in my bathtub.'... are you serious??? Why would you mention that, and why would you put that in the film? Ridiculous, revealing, and NOT invading her privacy, cause SHE chose it. Well my intelligence feels insulted by such a cheap ploy.

Don't know or care about the Hulu series.

She should have made a comedy of it all a long time ago. That would have helped her get acceptance, distance, and closure. Tommy's right when he says, 'Don't LET it hurt you the same as it did the first time.'

And there's the naked shoulder again.

I don't care if she's fake or real. I can forget about her now. She's not funny, she's not wise, she's just a slow learning soul like billions others.

This was not worthwhile.

There, I made the whole series disappear with a small common sense advice.

Thing is, it's more the mother's fault than the father's.

Not being able to accept death he wants to bring his daughter back to life - I think.

The way to do that is by building a secret, most powerful quantum computer that shows the past and the future. Try and steal the code, you get killed.

The visuals are very pleasing, the architecture and cinematography are very nice.

But oh the plot.

It is deterministically, sadly unsurprisingly, boring.

Determinism is the idea of a lazy mind, and a mind very much in love with itself, and it closes itself upon embracing determinism.

Grappling with your own certain death shows immaturity and sentimantality and arrogance, not philosophy, because it signifies nothing, get my drift?;-)

So that plot arc was completely vapid to me, you have to be willing to be gullible to a deterministic worldview to regard the story as having any sort of value or validity.

These people are so lost in the determinism cult that they never even think to just not do something. That's not science, that's religion.

The data of all things, haha yeah, build that computer. You know the mice did it and then when the desired output was imminent Earth sadly had to be destroyed for a one-second-later superfluous intergalactic freeway. Just sayin'. Irony. Not in these quantum particles this film was made from. Yawn.

There was no drama but the drama of the murder and the grief. The mystery of the murder was not at the centre of the story at all. Instead we get some unnecessary Russian spy trope, oh my.

Ex Machina was just as silly and unconvincing but for the ending, at least that was logical.

Here it is supposed to be 'logical', but is just someone's idea of an afterlife, or afterlives, albeit virtual. Very unsatisfying.

Deus (Ex Machina) is a big disappointment. Never because of the machines, but the people writing the lame stories. Who cares about that rich tech guy's inability to move on? I don't.

It is, in a way, disgusting that they make this fantasy seem feasible.

'It was Oswald'.

That's what they say they saw when they took their backlooking quantum computer to the grassy knoll.

Before that Marilyn Monroe riding Arthur Miller.

Both lame, and low.

The second because it's not funny or cool or daring or anything, just disgusting as a choice.

The first because it was an unexpected and lame 'fact' put out there by a TV series.

I am quite sure Oswald wasn't visible on or from the grassy knoll, wherever he was, at a window without a gun or prone with a gun. But serves as nice example of computers outputting what has been input. Took me out of the series and was slightly annoying.

In ep2 they chose the Monty Python crucifiction method for Jesus, which was already strange, but who cares wherever the reported marks on his hands and feet stemmed from.

It's really very uninteresting bits of 'history' they're visiting, slightly controversial, but what's the point I start to wonder. Because it's lame.

Hope they have better on offer. I like the world and architecture and cinematography.

The title is very misleading.

The movie is not really about the Creator.

It's not about anything that is explained.

It's a simple good vs bad trope.

Shame.

I can disregard plotholes, like missing time or how did they get from the last situation to the next (that happened a LOT), or why are the NOMAD attacks so lame, the strikes look destructive but nothing much is destroyed, the control room is easy to get to, etc.

No matter.

Nice visuals, nice world, nice tech, nice androids, nice ships and cars, all nice.

But.

If you want to convince me that AI is not just programming, you have to give me reasons.

Humans can bond with anything, that's not the issue.

But I am an Asimov enthusiast, and he is the only one who can make it believable. (And Terminator in T2, but he stayed AI. And of course Marvin's the best). Make me care, make me dis-believe it's not just a programme. AI is not an alien species. AI is NOT alive. Convince me I should see it as such. Again, not that a human can care for an android, that's a given.

That is why the film fell flat for me.

The first two episodes were interesting, lots of people involved giving their subjective takes for their subjective reasons.

I bet there's people falling for the morality farce that is episode 3 who buy and devour tabloids or online gossip the next day.

I actually do not believe Tulisa's version of what happened, and if she said she's against drugs (for herself maybe, or just because it's the thing to say) that does not mean anything, it's just PR, an utterance made on behalf of what she perceived would be a favourable thing to say. It was days before the ask for drugs.

Oh, the job would have been gone otherwise....boo-hoo. Haha.

What a lame excuse.

Not saying setting up lame people for them to agree to commit lame crimes (the three gals) is worth anything.

I actually do agree that you either say yes or say no, and unless I get blackmailed with my loved ones' lives at stake I would say no. Even then I would be in a quandary because I don't know any drug dealers.

Really the last episode is so boring. At least Jodie Kidd admits that she was stupid.

If something sounds too good to be true it usually is.

Greed will cause some people to do bad things. I see them actually all as alike in their endeavors.

Hearing people finding excuses for their not saying no to some rich dude is really revealing! And funny.

She blames her brother? Or the other way round?

Is this like 'I just took a package from Colombia for a friend' kind of thing?

'I don't want to be famous anymore' she says while filming herself saying that. And in the car after the case was thrown out. Funny.

I am not British so maybe I lack the familiarity with these celebrities.

The manipulative (!) moral-down-throat-shoving in ep 3 turned the series sour.

A good documentary lets the viewers make up their own minds.

This show ended differently to what I expected.

Because it ended with none if the hard questions asked or answered, instead leaving the wishywashy 'explanation' of the pathological liar just hanging in the rooms they recreated.

Were the initial contestants a bit stupid for falling for his con? Yes, they were.

But their stupidity is forgiveable, especially as they did see through it once confronted with the big 'producer'.

Even if I am the only person on Earth to read Mr Russian as I did, I stand by my truth o meter readings, and they are waaaaaay in the red.

He wanted to get rich off of his grand idea somehow, and he knew it was a lie from the start.

Imagine how much time and thinking he put into the creation of that 6 page contract. Its content alone screams deliberate fraud.

Makimg up people as employees in his production company. Yeah, sure, Nik, that was all for a good thing.

He was so deluded that instead of saying no thank you to London Tonight he let them interview him and presented the audience with more of his deranged nonsense.

How were these people to make £ 100,000 each in a year starting with nothing? Beg some coins and win in a casino? Rob a bank? Marry and then off a millionaire?

Nik was not asked that question.

I don't even believe him when he says he was homeless.

Or anything really.

I have known pathological liars and con artists. They don't lie All The Time. They spin in truth, and they are very convincing, and charming, they are lightning quick in adapting their lies.

Of course they are all troubled. Everyone's troubled.

So I was disappointed that it was not about truth after all.

I know all life is about stories, the stories we create ourselves about our experiences and interpretations.

But whether you are genuine or not, i.e. Whether you are true to your inner story, that shines through.

And Nik, to the very last, was always first thinking about what to say next. 'Humility works best here', was his inside choice. 'Sticking to my story works best here, makes me just seem stupid, not vicious'. A sociopath, was all I thought.

I do not care whether I may be a little (not all) wrong there. Maybe he is reformed, or just awkward and still self-delusional. I saw no real contrition, no reality, just a show of reality. Haha.

And the would be contestants saying their lives changed for the better? How about it might have been even better without having been conned? You make the best of situations, don't make correlations out of chronological occurances.

And at least one person's life was affected negatively.

The song at the end was the best thing.

Could have been much more real.

Big Business America is moralising Big Pharma? Ha-ha!

Without the wokeness it would have been a fun movie.

Bankers, brokers, pharma reps et al do not come with a conscience, so I am annoyed of fairy-taling morals into them.

And why do you think no CEO of Pfizer et al is in prison right now? You think they are better people? Better connected, even richer and decades of lobbying I would say.

Doctors have been drug pushers since the beginning of time.

Not saying people shouldn't go for malpractice suits, on the contrary, sue them all into bankruptcy.

But people do not want responsibility for themselves. They want magicians in white coats to cure them. That includes illness and medication, and addiction.

Next they'll be suing gun manufacturers for gunshot suicides. Joke. Or the sugar manufacturers for rotten teeth and diabetes. Or the rich for poor people dying because they cannot afford basic treatments. I'm just not into cherry-pick blaming.

And Fentanyl is a great drug.

First half was fun, then it turns boring in all its fake outrage and concern.

A morality play? Ha-ha.