Reviews

This is one of the best movies I have seen on Netlfix. Somewhat reminiscent of "The Golden door" "The leopard" gorgeous camera work, slow pace, too intelligent maybe for most streaming audiences. It has some violence, it lacks clear intent in parts. The acting was suburb, the closeness of the villagers and the families was impressive and very well shown. The acting was first rate. The very final part was not suited to what had come before and seemed rather misplaced, but overall I would be very pleased if Netflix and others had more movies of this calibre.

As a production I thought this was fine, however I disagree with the diagnosis of murder. This poor man was obviously suffering under some kind of mental breakdown. It is very sad that the pharmacist, or the parking garage attendants did not think to call the police. A man wearing one shoe, totally disoriented, wandering around, most likely crawling into the dumpster and either falling asleep or dying of natural causes and then getting dumped into land fill. Tragic ending to what had been a life of achievement.

The very well know story of the Stephans sisters and their friends and romantic relationships is so completely covered in biographies, books of letters, books of diaries that it is impossible to squeeze it into three relatively short episodes. So much that greatly impacted their lives has been left out.. . the various homes, the Hogarth press, Virginias terrible insecurity about her writing, her mental breakdowns, the travels, the very real and numerous tragedies that preceded the start of this series, and really defined their future capabilities. The birth of Angelica, (named long after the day of her birth) and the marriage suggestion by Bunny Garnet of coupling with his lover's daughter was such a bizarre (and True) happening that it is what inspired me on my 20+ year study of these fascinating, truly accomplished and flawed people.

To start with I liked the actors and I loved the settings. But the story was so absurd. I knew immediately that the character did not want to move, not because he was tied to the house, but that his wife was buried in it. This brings out two of the most egregious newly presented "facts" of the story. The Steven Rea, character said his wife was Russian and they had a son named Chris. O.K. that Chris turns out to be a girl and of mixed race, one being black. But one does not think of Russians as being black. Then Adam and his father are long time acquaintances of the SR character and the neighborhood, and Adam is trying to help keep the house for his friend but evidently none of them had any contact for years? The whole ending thing in the forest and the murder, explained away by a common use of the gun by Katz? How did the bodies get out of the forest? How about the time he was in jail already? What happened about the poisoning of Olivia? What happened about the decapitation of the alpaca? Why did Corinne have the false pregnancy? One thing I must congratulate the author on, and also the actor, that speech by Corinnes murderer was fantastic and the acting was fantastic too.and the final murder was reasonable given that speech.

I will give this one star simply because I liked Ann Reid, whom I did not like at all in Last Tango in Halifax. . .which shows what a good actress she is. I have not read the eleven chapters of Jane Austen's Sanditon, but I have read enough of her novels to think she must have spun in her grave over this pathetic adaptation. Every kind of current theme in contemporary life was addressed in the first episode. The molesting priest (not actually but certainly in his sermon), the molested child, Charlottes many costume changes, the dancing (we almost switched channels at that one) the black female welcomed into society. We hated t his. Nice scenery though.

I question the writing of the scripts, that would be my biggest complaint. Although basically, the same, the characters do not always behave consistently and I am taking into consideration fluctuations in the human character. Way way too much of sex and the use of the F word. To me that means a lack of intelligent use of language and a lack of imagination for action/behavior. We actually counted the times F was said in one episode and it was 48 times in a 50 +/- minute episode. Helen and Noah attended Williams College, the highest ranked college in the country. Surely they would have had better vocabularies than they did esp Noah being a writer. If they are representative of people today and not just a minor slice of life, we are all in trouble. The Affair itself and the results of it are pretty much in line with what can happen to end a marriage. . . but the other happenings, the hit and run, the murder, the dystopian look at the future (that world really needed a bullet train to go to a basically uninhabited place?) What I really did love were the houses featured. The cliff hung house with the wonderful terrace in LA, the charming boat house? on the Hudson, Helen's parents house in Montauk, the brownstone in Park Slope. I thought the acting was pretty good. Really disliked series five. As time went on I thought the female characters became physically less attractive. Certain scenes I thought were spot on, one being that between Vik and Sierra, another Noah, planning the wedding and coming up with creative solutions. It is a confusing mixture of elegance (the world of these wealthy privaleged people and tawdry. . . how they often behaved and lived)

There was a lot going for this film. Both the lead actors were charming and a pleasure to watch. The film though had a major flaw. . . and that was in the theme. . . the search for a missing relative. The heroine says she went to an online ancestry search site. If she had done that she would have been looking for only ONE Chuck Flynn. An ancestry site would have narrowed her search down to one specific birth date with one specific set of parents, and one specific birth place. Even if she did not know where he was now, she would have had some basic information on him.

I am 84 so lived through all the years in this film. Believe me even in Brooklyn New York where I first heard the F word spoken out loud women simply did not speak like this and certainly not at work. I was 32 (so 1964) before I ever heard this word. Why was the heroine dating that wimpy guy? What was her problem sexually? (Physically?) Wasn't she supposed to be aboard the ship with the explosives? Was the Keely Haws character alive or dead at the end? Why did the heroine push her down the stairs? It did not make much sense. Why was she as a new employee calling the shots for other employees? I think I am generous in giving it 3 but I do like Keely Haws.

I think this may be the first Hungarian movie I have ever seen. Overall I liked the black and white and pace and concept and execution of this movie. But I do have some observations/criticisms. 1) if these were men from their town why did people not recognize them? 2) if these orthodox Jews could not travel in a cart on the Sabbath, how could they travel by train? 3) if they were purporting to carry remains of villagers, where did they get the remains? How could they be available to them and discernible as individuals?

My daughter had warned me about this episode. I had loved one and two and expected to like them all, but this one was a huge disappointment. The acting was fine and I was thrilled to see Isabelle Huppert. Until I read another review I wasn't sure exactly what was happening. However here it is, a well known actress who will be a great asset to this film has recently experienced a grievous family loss. When she arrives in Austria to film the last episodes of the Romanoff's history, where she is to act the part of the Empress Alexandria,.bizarre things immediately start to happen. A PA can not understand English, yet speaks it, The actress is told the hotel has no bar, and yet the person who told her so is the bar tender in the hotel bar. These things are upsetting and unsettling to the viewer as well as the Actress. I'm so sorry so much effort was put into a story that is not at all plausible, necessary (even it its own terms) or enjoyable and which furthers no ones knowledge (don't think the series is actually intended to) of the history of the subject matter.

On the way out today, I fell down in my living room and used that fall as an excuse to stay home and binge watch the remaining 6 episodes of Homecoming. What I liked most is that everything is tied up and resolved and explained and actually has a very hopeful ending. Plus I loved the film itself, the pacing, the sets, the sense of a heavy oppression at the beginning, when Walter and his friend decide to explore the setting of Homecoming, the acting, the mutual attraction of Walter and Heidi, her obsessive personality. I thought all the actors did a great job, even Sissy Spacek who can annoy me. My only complaint was the breaking down into half hour or less segments. I did not want to watch the credits so repetitively. but chose to just ignore them while forwarding to next episode.

I watched this film because I am reading a biography of Oswald Mosley, a famous English fascist in the '30's and '40s. This movie is pretty weak tea, the story line, the sets, the houses are preposterous. I am reminded that while there were some great movies in the 30's and '40's there were some real duds and this was one of them. Spenser Tracy was good as was the mother, the cab driver, the doctor. The story . . . had no subtlety, no believable structure. The only thing I really did like was the reminder of times when people were not immediately on a first name basis, when there was a little space between being introduced and being besties, although this had nothing to do with the plot it was so true and I for one miss it.

I like to read a lot of reviews along with watching the episodes which we usually watch 2 at a time. What most critical viewers disliked was: 1) Michael Hall's British accent 2) the disparity (to them) of the two people involved in the drowning. However when I watched all episodes what I found most ridiculous were a) the impossibility of the early transgression being kept secret for more than a week after it happened. b) the fact that there were two separate groups of students in a high school at night when the school was closed. . . 13 people at the same time? And one group knew the danger and the other did not? And could not escape it? As far as Michael Hall's accent, I have to let my British friends determine that, I know I find many British in trying to sound American end up sounding ridiculous. This is o.k. it is fast paced and the characters are well played although at first it seemed unusually for the new detective to take over so. And as others have said that a doctor seemingly had no rescheduling or other arrangements to make while he engaged in his madcap search for his missing daughter.

The best I could say for this is that it is a movie which to me is o.k. Also I liked seeing Patagonia. I got the basic outline of the plot . . . a single girl called Cordelia disappears on what was an ill advised excursion for a group of close teenage friends who all wear the same necklace. Her mother and one friend seek diligently for her in the intervening years between this action and the start of the film.

Everything is told in flash backs or current actions that are mostly inexplicable to this viewer. Who is the person in the mental hospital? Is she one of the two girls who disappeared in the most pivotal action? Why were the friends/mourners only concerned with the one girl? Why did one of the henchmen save the life of the two women, just because one of them said he should? Why were the two henchmen in bed with Cordelia? Who was the woman at the birthday party who gave the 7 year old boy the necklace? Where did it say half of 14, was that the number of years Cordelia was missing? If she was a sex slave why did the "Owners" of her allow her to have a baby? Not really worth pondering over these things, but one wonders.

The writer is maybe better as an actress. The story told was overlong and disjointed. Why did the seemingly very acceptable, lover/boyfriend become an assailant and why did his girl friend submit? Why was her new male interest so very apathetic while at the same time being totally available? The difficulty of having a blended family and also caring for a critically ill person was very well expressed. while at the same time the heroine, seemed unnecessarily testy with the patient, her father. And this is maybe a silly complaint but the people who were supposed to be related by blood bore no physical relationship to each other. That was disconcerting. Still kudos to a writer/director/actress for putting it out there. My family also has a budding film maker so I realize what a rocky path it is.

My husband and I did enjoy this movie. The pacing was lively and interesting. The characters were all appealing and the actress playing Charlotte is really beautiful. She reminded me of Gene Tierney. But most of the story is just sex and sex in all combinations. The jams they got into were entertaining, but we did not watch the ending. For me the very best thing about this movie was the song, Charlotte sang. I loved it, loved her voice, loved the quietness of it. Would very much like to hear more music like that.

I gave this film a 2 star rating for the beauty fo the actress and the cinematography. For someone from the United States so much of the action was inexplicable. Why was the star called "Doctor" by everyone? Why then was her husband also called "Doctor?" Why did she wear the same blouse throughout the whole film? Why was there a road block? Was it to acquire the baby? If so, why? Nice scenery but very confusing. I have seen some excellent films from Argentina, but this certainly was not one of them.

We did hang in there to finish this series but it was really bad, in every way. The main characters were absolutely vile and inconsistent. People with responsible important jobs acted like they worked part time in high school, bouncing in and out and all around. Continuity was confusing and actions were inconsistent, the main character, Gemma, walks at night to a house in the country that during the daytime was a long drive! She then walks back to the center of town where she hails a cab to take her home. People sold their houses with nary any notice and same houses were occupied in a day or two with new owners. The main purpose of Gemma's life seems to be the destruction of her ex-husband, who in flash backs seems to be the light of her life! Gemma moves out of town as far as a hotel on the edge Gemma brews up a suicide potion for Simon and then at breakfast discusses this with him in front of their son, Tom. All I can say about this that may be hopeful is that I hope the writer of this miserable piece of trash has successfully exorcized what must be some demons from a horrible child hood.

This was miserably confusing and I did not realize till the end when the male lead went to the house of the victims mother that this was a takeoff of the really very good Argentina film I had seen some years ago.

Can't recommend it at all.

I had really been looking forward to this film. I sincerely believed the hype which I had read. Like the parson's egg some parts of it were excellent;. Daniel Day Lewis' acting. The overall art direction, the dresses, the inner workings of a renowned fashion house. The actors all stayed in character, it is the plot, the writing, that took bizarre and inexplicable twists. So confusing I am not sure what the ending of the movie was. Were the actions in several ending scenes, just fantastical visions of Alma? Why would Reynold not be appalled at what happened to him, rather than appreciating it as some grand joke? Who would do anything that even, inadvertently could possibly (and did) cause harm to a very expensive garment, the result of painstaking labor on the part of up to twenty people and possibly be the source of a catastrophe to a royal wedding. The best thing I can say about it is, that my husband and I did get two sincere laughs (but the only ones in the theater to do so) from scenes at the table. And Reynold's perfect explanation of their annoyance.

If you enjoy watching HGTV remodeling shows, like watching attractive looking people, enjoy different cultures you will get some enjoyment from this.

If you are impatient with implausible behaviors, not accepting of plot holes and think "can cultural norms really be this different?" you will have more difficulty liking this film.

Since when it is an owners responsibility to provide a meal for workers? Why would a couple fall under the sway of someone who is obviously a con man, so easily? Why would the person who holds the purse strings open them for their mate at the behest of the con man? Why would a woman submit so easily to a cheap sexual relationship when her own mother deserted her for the same reason? When we know the heroine is the recipient of her mothers property + a sizable amount of cash, why is there no explanation of her sisters inheritance from their mother? Or lack of?

When a tragic accident occurs why would the characters not immediately call in authorities rather than try to cover up something that is immediately understandable?