Reviews

I love Spielberg and there's no doubt he's the most successful director of all time. If you look at his library of films, they are the biggest box office and most awarded and critically acclaimed of any director.

That said, knowing this is an autobiography, it's pretty boring. Scenes go on too long and the film really goes no where. Honestly, I think a real biography that starts where this movie ends would be interesting. I was just bored by this. I wanted to like it but I couldn't. There are a couple good scenes here and there but overall, I can't imagine how people were entertained by this overly long movie.

But hey, a lot of what I like and dislike isn't what most people like, so there's that. But for me personally, it was boring and long winded.

It's not a bad show at all but the reviews I'm reading here make this to be the greatest TV of all time and it's not remotely.

It's an NYPD Blue for today with characters not as interesting as that show. The characters, all played by capable actors, are the same characters that every police procedural show has. There is nothing original about anything here. The episodes even start out exactly like NYPD blue did, various quick shots of New York - then the story starts.

Selleck is always good but the "voice of reason" character gets a little grating after a while. Donnie Walberg is a good actor but the "plays by his own rules" cop is beyond a cliche.

My problem with the show outside the basic, standard police procedural show which is all this is, is the bad exposition in every episode. They treat the audience like they're stupid. By "bad exposition" I mean where two characters are explaining something that they clearly already know and would never utter outloud like they do but are doing it for the benefit of the audience watching. "You were my partner for three years a few years back, can you watch my back?" Or "must be hard knowing your brother was killed in the line of duty" (girlfriend says to her boyfriend graduating the police academy in front of his family - something no one would actually say like that in that situation in a million years). This stuff happens every episode.

And then the grandfather - yeah, completely pointless character to reminiscent of Frasier. Adds nothing to the show. I keep trying to work out the ages every time he's on screen - I would assume Seleck is playing 65, the father has to be 85 but looks 75. I would guess the oldest son who passed was 45.

Every episode has them having dinner together and sometimes the dialog can get cringy or boring.

Overall, it's a show I don't mind watching while I'm on the treadmill - don't think I'd watch it on regular TV. But it's been on for 14 years so clearly it is doing well.

This is one of those dreadfully awful films that only the "cool" people "get it." I see people whining "oh man, they just don't get it - ho hum." These are pretentious people who wouldn't know a good movie if it was laid out before them in single syllable words.

It's an hour and forty minutes of shots of a wall, a ceiling, a rug, a light, a TV, all done with a cheap "old film" filter run over video. It doesn't look like film, it looks like a cheap "film" filter run over video. It also had a loud hiss that doesn't make it look like old film, it's just an annoying sound to add to a terrible "movie" that makes no sense. I got through 30 minutes of this mess and I'd like to kick myself in the head for wasting those 30 minutes - or even more so kick in the head the morons who said this was a great film. I started fast forwarding because I couldn't sit through shots of a house for another five minutes and it's just not worth it. It's awful - it makes Brown Bunny look like Citizen Kane. At least there was some sort of story in Brown Bunny. I assume there was a story here only because that's what some people said - the ones who want you to believe this was great when it's unwatchable.

These are well produced episodes. No reinactments which is also a plus (90% of these shows today are mostly reenactments by bad actors on a low budget)

My big problem is calling this "Survived" a serial killer. Not everyone in this was in danger. Should be called "I Survived, was married to or had an encounter with a serial killer."

There is one lady who was a prostitute whose "survived" was simply having a sexual encounter with the killer, 5 years before he ever killed anyone. This is ridiculous. If your show's hook is "people who survived a serial killer" than have people who survived a serial killer. Not people who encountered them and were literally in zero danger. If you don't have a "survivor" of a certain killer, then don't have an episode on that person. It's dishonest and annoying.

Another was the wife of a serial killer. Was she in danger? Probably not. The guy beat her and yes spousal abuse victims do get killed by their spouses sometimes. Was this particular lady in danger of that? Most likely not. He didn't even start killing until after they broke up. Again, not a "survivor." Did she have good insight on the guy? Sure. But she was not a "survivor" of being killed from a serial killer.

That said, the show is well done. Has the principals being interviewed, good music, lots of news footage from the times of the murders, stuff like that. One thing I hate is they generally have just 2 or 3 photos of the killer (or the survivor) that they repeatedly show 25 times throughout the show.

Also lots of shots of flowers, walls, streets, a lady bug, and other stuff that is literally just filler.

If you have to fill up your episode with stuff like this because you don't have anything else to fill it up with, then don't do an hour show.

But for the most part, the actual survivors are good and the police involved are also interesting. They don't put these people studios with stupid backgrounds - they're in rooms and offices which is the way to do it. No super close ups of the person's face where you see all their pores and are begging for the camera to pull back.

Well produced show. I took off a star for the "encounters" that were not actual "survivors" (in any way) but good show to watch if you want to waste 40 minutes.

This is a show made by the same people who do Snapped, one of the shows that set the standard for this type of show. It's about 90% reenactments with the rest interviews with some of the principals from the cases.

They do a really odd thing in this show, where the person being interviewed is in a dark studio with lights on them and is sitting next to a mirror. So you see this blurred person sitting next to them and I swear the first couple people I was wondering who the person was sitting next to them in the dark studio and what the purpose of that was. It's distracting and makes zero sense.

This, like a lot of these shows now, has cases that were solved relatively quickly but they need to draw it out to fit in an "hour" (40 minutes with commercials) but the basis is to show how bad these women who get guys to kill for them are. The cases are still relatively interesting but like a lot of these shows, they would be so much better as a half hour show (which they will never do - Snapped did one seasons of 30 minute episodes and felt it was better to drag them out over and hour - like ths show).

The police involved with these cases are all generally good speakers and are interesting. They have "friends" of victims or the killer give their opinions.

But the worst thing about this show is the reenactments. They always get people who are way way better looking the real people. It's almost insulting. One lady marries some older nerdy guy who's never been with a woman. The actress is super hot. They show the real lady and you're wondering who thinks she's "hot" like they keep talking about. Worse are the "in court" shots where the actress is dressed for a club and looks really good - then they show the real lady - who is super overweight and looks like she's been selling enchiladas in the Home Depot parking lot. Why exaggerate this? Makes this seem like a super low budget made for TV movie that makes up stuff that never happened.

One case has a guy playing a wrestler and the actor's face really is identical the real guy. But he's fat. Not a wrestler in any way. He couldn't' be a heavyweight because he's too short. But he got the part because of his face. But the scene where he's "going for a run" gets a big laugh. That guy hasn't "run" a day in his life. Better to get someone who looks like they wrestled in high school, not a guy whose face looks like the real guy but is fat.

Almost every instance the actor is better looking. They have the actress being interrogated the police, then cut to video of the real person and she looks about 80 pounds heavier and was attractive as the actress playing her maybe back in high school 30 years earlier. Again, it's insulting. Just get people who look like the real people. Nothing wrong with non-attractive actors playing non-attractive people.

They "reenact" things that happened, like a woman bringing in the sabre her boyfriend used to slash up a guy - but the reenactment is her entering a door way with her arms stretched out, holding the saber and two cops standing a couple feet away just watching her. It looks like a high school play. If you can't reenact what happened with some degree of reality, don't try.

Every episode has actress playing the woman the episode is about in court, smirking, like she thinks she's above her case and will get off easily. This is to make you dislike her more, as if you didn't already. Again, super unethical. They do stuff like this to create emotion when it's not necessary - it's just wrong.

The writing is terrible in a lot of places, like it was written by a 7th grader. A detective says "the judge told us we had 24 hours to get evidence on Adrianna or she'd go free." Then 2 seconds later, the narrator says "so they had 24 hours to find evidence on her or Adrianna would go free." Ug, painful.

One of the absolute dumbest traits of this show is the little supers - little labels they put on things for us dumb people whose eyes apparently don't see well. Like there's a stack of business cards, then the little red label appears with an arrow pointing to the cards that reads "business cards." Or there's a trail of blood and the label appears and reads "trail of blood." Good thing they had that, I thought it was a trail of milk. Me is dumb.

Overall the cases are interesting and the real people are generally good. They need to dump that mirror - I'm still unclear on what that does. And stop getting actors who are ten times better looking than the real people. It's dishonest. The general public can handle fat people or average looking folks playing the real people. Also get better writers. This is just another show I watch while on the treadmill, I don't know if I could sit though a whole episode otherwise.

This is a four part show that could easily be 3 or less without the repetition and padding. There are tons of shots of streets and cityscapes and trees and stills and video of Bernardo and Holomoka repeated over and over and over and over. The same things said by the same people and then other people are repeated over and over and over. We have to see people being interview coming in, sitting down. We get a shot of one guy's whiskey glass. Another shot of a guy stopping to take a drink. We get long (unethical) shots of the interviewees holding back tears. We get the people repeating things like "she should have never got that deal" over and over. Yeah, we know, do we need every single person on the show to repeat the obvious?

There's lot of unethical editing. In episode four where they talk about Karla being released from prison, we get long shots of the interviewees looking sad. Some crying. That's it. It's seriously immoral, done simply to evoke emotion by using these people's grief. I hate the people who produced this.

The name of the show implies you're going to be watching the "murder tapes" as well. More immoral stuff about this show. When I saw that title my first thought was "wait, they destroyed the tapes after the trials. What "lost murder tapes" are they referring to? They talk about the tapes in the episode like they do in any other doc about these two. That's it. There's no new light or video we haven't seen here.

We see TONS of the same video you've seen on every other documentary about these two. Over. And over. And over. The same 20 or so shots. And every time someone says "Paul Bernardo" we have to see a still of him or video of him making faces. It's beyond annoying. There came a time when I had to look away every time they did this.

They also do lots of reenactments intertwined with the same video we've seen already and it's edited to imply it's part of the video. For example, she's talking in an interview about how they'd drive around looking for girls - then we see a shot of Paul driving (just a random shot they took, NOT of them looking for girls) intertwined with reenactment shots of young girls walking down the street, implying this IS video of them looking for girls and that's some of the girls they got on video. It's mind bogglingly unethical.

But as I stated, things are repeated ad nauseum throughout the show, stringing out this to four episodes. It would have been a much more solid 3 episode or even 2 episode show.

That said, it's the fourth episode that you get most of the stuff not seen in other documentaries and that's what happened during the trial. This was pretty good. Still a lot of dishonest editing but overall the episode is far and away the best of the four.

One reporter described Karla on the stand as "a beige curtain." Her descriptions were great.

You have Bernardo's lawyer team talking and they think all funny. They laugh and smile throughout. One lady who was a paralegal is is on episode 4 for a lot, talks about how she hates Karla and what a terrible person she is but "we wanted to give Paul everything." She never says anything bad about the guy who orchestrated the whole thing - who besides this was the Scarborough rapists. I hated this lady with a passion, even more than the lawyer.

A lot of the interviews have the camera RIGHT UP AGAINST THE INTERVEES FACE. Why is it so close? Is this a Jonathan Demme film we're watching? Pull the camera out. We don't need to see every pore on the person's face.

Overall, if you're as familiar with this case as I am, you only need to watch the fourth episode. It was good. And you do leave feeling sad for the 3 victims (outside the rape victims who you also feel bad for). I wish this had been produced by better people then ones who did this, though. Could have been better.

Ug, I read some of the reviews here and I wonder if they were watching the same show. This is so boring. And don't get me wrong - I like slow moving thrillers or even basic dramas as long as it's written well and the characters are interesting but this thing. I pulled myself through 3 episodes, the next two I fast forwarded a lot, I thought there has to be some reason it's got such a high rating in the IMDB. At the beginning of episode six where he has her write her name and put it in a glass of water, which was so mind bogglingly stupid and pretentious, I stopped.

I don't care what happens to any character here, I don't care about the story, the writing was terrible, the show moves at a snails pace and I don't buy Amy Brenneman's character for one bit.

Hey, some people like super slow, long winded babble fests with unlikeable characters. Just not me.

Wahlberg is a good host and the show is well produced. They have a lot of audio and sometimes video of the killers which is a big plus. They have a lot of the principals of the case talking about it which is good.

The bad is bad though. There are always people who had literally nothing to do with the case talking abotu it as if they did - including the annoying "criminal psychologists" who give us insight us dumb people would never get.

"He had a bad childhood and this brought about his inclinations to kill people as an adult."

Really? We would have never had gotten that. A lot of these people talking about the cases were most likely given the fact to read just before they taped their "interview." Most of these people weren't even born when the crimes happened.

Also the episodes are stretched to two episodes each which means you get tons of repetition. You even get the "interviewees" saying the same thing multiple times - it's annoying.

Overall the show is done well but do not forget, they did a show on Richard Klukinski, who was charged with 5 murders that we know of. It's possible he did another one or two maybe. But this guy, after he was caught, was making up so much baloney and they try to pass it off here as fact.

In his book he was supposedly running into rapists every other day and killing them. He was involved in road rage every other day and killing these people. All of these "crimes" he takes credit for were investigated and they could never find any evidence of any of them. NOT ONE. He claims he killed Hoffa. Of course it isn't true.

But this show passes it off as fact. There was one guy who said he claims he did over a hundred murders but there is no proof. That's all there was to show he was lying his butt off. The show itself pretends he did commit over a hundred murders and this is unethical and bad TV. I hate this. If you want your show to be respected, don't pass off fake information as fact. The guy killed 5 people and that's probably all there was. But for the purposes of this show they claim over a hundred. So it makes you wonder how many other episodes have incorrect or made up info.

This is supposed to be a "here's what really happened in this crime" documentary that gives you completely fake and disproven theories.

The OJ case was the absolute worst. Every "alternate" theory they gave has long been proven false - the Glen Rogers theory, the OJ's son theory, they're ridiculous and stupid. They also quote evidence that isn't remotely true, the "blood from someone else all over the crime scene they never found whose it was" - just ridiculous. This is supposed to be a network crime series and it's giving clearly fake theories as facts.

The OJ one is hard to watch. It's easier for idiots to believe all these completely outlandish theories than that a really nice guy killed his wife.

Vincent Bugliosi said "I have never seen more evidence against one person than there is in this case." Even Alan Dershowitz, befoer he joined OJ's team, said "this is the most evidence I've ever seen - it's a mountiain of evidence" and then he joined the team and changed his tune.

To think OJ was innocent, you'd have to believe that the police ALL decided on the spur of the moment to frame OJ, not knowing if another killer would be caught the next day and somehow get OJ's blood that night and mix it in the crime scene.

OJ's blood was mixed with the victim all over the crime scene, his car and his house.

End of story.

But this idiotic show tries to claim it wasn't OJ and provides a bunch of fake theories long disproven and that's somehow "what really happened."

It's unethical and bad TV.

I'm super claustrophobic so stuff like this is incredibly scary to me. The Descent is one of my all time favorite movies as is The Abyss.

You get a little of both here. A lot of the other reviews talk about this movie being unoriginal and all this stuff has been done in other movies, yeah, but how is it done? Is it done well or poorly?

It's done well here. The sense of dread is absolutely there the whole time. You watch the dilemma the characters are in through out the movie and feel safe in the comfort of your recliner in your living room knowing that you yourself are not stuck in the situation these characters are and that's a reason why movies like this are great.

There are some scenes where it's a little hard to tell what's going on and there's a little cheesiness going on but over all this is a great movie. Scary and well done, if you love the Abyss like I do, you'll enjoy this movie.

This is another Oxygen crime show with the usual hook - this one being a person has went out and will be murdered by morning.

It's basically the same format as Oxygen's main show "Snapped," relying heavily on slow motion reenactments. Interestingly the show has some of the principals from the crime speaking, lots of photos and videos from the original crime, which the show should focus on more - rather than the reenactments which usually have bad acting or a lot of the time miscast actors.

The show is well produced but still has cheap "effects" like a car was caught on fire with a body - the reinactment shows what is clearly a new, clean car with zero fire damage. If you're not going to something to show a burned car in the reinactment, don't do the scene. It just looks cheesy and cheap to show a non-burned car and just expect us to pretend. There's a lot of this type of stuff in the show.

One of the worst aspects of shows like this on Oxygen are some of the people talking about the case - the "forensic psychiatrist" who literally has zero to do with the original case, talking about the case as if he did and giving us the stupid "he was mad she spurned him, that's why he killed her" type comments for all the dumb people who can't figure this out themselves. It's not just annoying, it's insulting. They seem to have someone like this on every episode, a person, many times who wasn't even born when the crime occurred, talking about the case along with the other people who were apart of the incident, as if this person was too, when in fact it's just someone who was given the facts of the case just before they started shooting - yet talks as if they were part of it. It's super annoying. Stop doing this. They already have a host for the show who speaks here and there throughout the episode. Don't need a phoney extra person telling us the facts of the case who literally has zero to do with it.

A personal pet peeve for me is when people who were friends or relatives of the victim speak and dress like they're going to clean out their garage, not be on national TV. One overweight lady is slouched over on her couch, wearing jeans with giant ripped holes and a sloppy t-shirt looking like she just sat through a "Honey-Boo" marathon on TV. You're on national TV, not your friend's video show on youtube that six people watch. At least present yourself in a somewhat respectable manner. This is the producers fault. They should have people at least be presentable, not look like slobs.

There is also the standard padding for these shows where they stretch what would be a solid half hour show to an hour (42 minutes actually) spending a lot of time on the victim's background and lots of time on suspects who ended up having nothing to do with the case. It's why shows like Forensic Files are so great and shows like this are average. Could be so much better if they cut out the fat. Like the one episode where a guy was killed by his friends at a bar, as was his sisters. Cops new who did it within 48 hours. But to pad the episode they have to spend 20 minutes on stuff that could be covered in a minute - to make it appear like there was more of a "case" here rather than an easy "we figured it out in an hour" case. Stop with this.

The worst thing is the shots of the victim's parents or siblilngs - where they're talking and then the camera holds on them as they say nothing, shedding a tear or just out and out crying. It's dishonest editing and unethical. I hate it so much. If I was one of those people I'd be pissed. I wonder if they're telling them to not say anything for a moment, we just want to get a shot of you looking sad.

Oxygen is filled with shows like this now - some hook - killed by morning or killed by a friend or caught on video or whatever. All basically the same format, lots of fat to stretch the episode to an hour. Good if you're on the treadmill like me, just watching something while working out - probably wouldn't watch this just if I was sitting around watching TV. As far as these crime shows go, overall this is one of the more watchable ones - would be so much better without the extra nonsense.

First off, I don't think a single person that has reviewed this show has actually watched it. They're all saying things that have zero to do with this show. One person is complaining about 'reenactments." There are zero reenactments in this show. Another person is complaining about the results of cases, like the producers have anything to do with that.

This show is like a Law and order episode, the first half is about the case, the second half is the trial. So unlike a lot of other crimes shows out there today, they don't spend 15 minutes on the six guys they interviewed who had nothing to do with the case. There isn't a lot of fat. You get about half on the case, half on the trial.

They use a lot of video, photos and interview the principles in the case. That's it.

I personally can't stand when they show the detectives looking at a case book or walking in slow motion, this assumes we're all stupid and need to see them solving the case. It's annoying. Also the little filters like showing photos of the victims through an old timey film filter or little sparkles or things that are done to evoke emotion. We don't need this. There is emotion simply from the case and the crime itself. We don't need these other fake things done that assume people are stupid. People are not stupid and just want to see the straight facts with shots of the detective driving.

Outside that, I really like this show. Yeah, there are a couple cases that will have you screaming at the TV. I do hate that not everyone on the show was convicted and you know they're guilty. But overall, this is one of the best crime shows out there. I hope they do another season (I've watched the first two).

Butler is a fine actor but looks nothing like Elvis. The entire time I just feel like we're watching an Elvis impersonator. He's got a baby face and even with the make up and prosthetics still looks nothing like Elvis. He's always got his mouth open and just never captures the look at all.

He has the voice down and moves are well done. Still, I just see an Elvis impersonator. Watch Kurt Russell as Elvis, no one comes close to that performance.

Hanks was great but the Colonel spoke with a southern accent, not the accent Hanks does here (which was supposed to be Dutch but was kind of all over the place).

I hated some of none-Elvis music like when they play rap songs. Nothing takes you out of a movie than playing music that came decades after the events they're portraying.

Best thing about this movie was the editing, superbly done, the quick shots are great and moves the movie along great (until you get a rap song to remind you you're watching a movie).

I also felt there was zero chemistry between the actors playing Priscilla and Elvis, both were miscast (IMO).

This will be the last Elvis movie for a while for sure, hopefully the next one some day will have a better cast Elvis.

I've only seen episodes from the first season so I don't know what they're talking about here with the "little girl narrator."

This is another crime show that is mostly filled with reenactments. You get a couple of the victim's relatives and people who prosecuted the criminals. Problem is besides over done reenactments (which of course are all low budget - I love the autopsy room - which is just three guys wearing white smocks in a blank room and a table) is the episodes are all over the place.

I was watching and it was a murder that took place in 1992 and all of a sudden they're talking about some guy walking in the forest in 1981 and I'm trying to figure out what I missed and this is how the episodes are done. They bounce all over between three murders. It's a terrible format and it took me a while to catch on, especially since it's hard to tell the actors apart from the segments.

One episode had little "animated" edits intercut into the reenactments, it was absolutely horrid. The show gets pretty clinical at times and can be boring. If it was straight forward and each crime was played out instead of jumping back and forth it might be a little more interesting but there's some bad editing (the animation - oof!!). Sometimes the folks in England can be hard to understand too.

Won't be watching the second season.

This is another true crime show in the same format as shows like Snapped and Ice Cold Blood and many others out there. The "gimmick" for this one is the 80s had the most "deadly" crimes of any decade. This of course isn't remotely true, the 80s had no more "deadly" crime than any other decade and the fact they have a show with the same name but for the 90s kind of counteracts against this claim.

That said, it has the same "slow motion" recreations going on in the background while someone talks that a lot of the other true crime shows have. The narrator is good for this show and that's a big plus because a lot of these shows get terrible narrators. The big problem of course, as with shows like Snapped, is the show is a 30 minutes show stretched out to an hour (actually 21 minutes stretched out to 42). Lots and lots of padding. Lots of unnecessary background stuff and points of the investigation that go nowhere. Every show does 12-13 minutes on the victim's background to start the show and most of it isn't necessary at all. It's annoying. Forensic Files is the only show that does this right - 30 minutes, boom, here's the facts.

The crimes are interesting but are hurt by dumb issues that someone running the show should not have allowed. One is some people involved in the case are laughing or smiling the whole time as they're talking about a terrible crime. The prosecutor of a terrible crime in the midwest where a family was butchered, he's practically cracking up as he speaks. This is an awful incident yet it seems really funny to him. Is this funny to you, idiot? I hated that guy and found it hard to watch. There are a few other people "interviewed" in these episodes who seem to think it's fun and hilarious to talk about a terrible crime.

Another problem and shows like Snapped do the same thing - they have people being "interviewed" about the case who give all kinds of details and are very passionate about the case - who have literally zero to do with it. The "Forensic Psychologist" who talks about a crime that clearly happened before she was born, but as if she was part of the case. Then she offers tidbit like "he was cross dressing. He knew she wouldn't like it and tried to keep it from her. This is not something she'd be happy about." Ya think? Thanks for that psychologist insight that us stupid people would never have realized on our own. Clearly people like this were given the facts of the just before they started taping and she talks as if she was very involved in the whole thing. It's irritating. This lady was in a couple episodes and clearly was put there because she's attractive and they needed another interviewee and no other reason (she adds zero to the actual show).

Another annoying thing they have in every episode is someone comes on screen and talks about the case but they don't tell you who this person is or what their connection to the case is until well into the episode. I'm watching going "I guess that was the bus driver? Be nice if they let us know."

Some of the episodes are even a little hard to follow. The Hari Krishna one was all over the place, I lost track of who was who and the fact it was so boring didn't help. Honestly, your episode is probably going to be as good as the crime is interesting. And if the show was produced better, it would be more interesting. Others have the actual killer and at the beginning they don't want us to know he's the eventual killer and the way he's talking, he's giving us the details of what he told the police (which were lies) but passing it off to us as fact at the beginning. Then later you find he's the killer and wonder what question was he responding to with his earlier statements in the episode. It's dishonest editing and I get they're trying to tell a story without giving away the killer but still, it's just odd.

Overall, I just watch these while I'm on the treadmill. This is not something I'd watch when just watching TV. I wanted to like the show better but again, make it 30 minutes, not an hour. Dump the people who weren't involved in the incident. I mean, the "neighbor" is fine for a few seconds but it appears they were even giving her things to talk about. And NONE of these shows ever need a "Forensic Psychologist" ever. Adds zero to the show (do not forget this particular one is very attractive of course). Stop people from smiling or laughing as they're talking. There is nothing funny here.

It does have its interesting aspects, if the show was only 30 minutes it'd be a very good show. Incidentally the Rebecca Shaffer episode was the best one and well done.

First off, Ruddy fixes everything. We don't know how he does it, they don't think it's necessary to tell us but he can fix anything (how the heck did he fix Redford's legal problems to get him to do his film?). It's super annoying and he's a severely unlikeable character (I have no idea how much of this is really like him, however he was one of the producers so I guess a lot).

I love the Godfather so I really wanted this to be good. But it drags. It's repetitive and boring a lot of the time. There were a couple episodes I couldn't get through in one sitting. Some of the people are cast well and some are not. I loved the guy playing Pacino but my God, Pacino didn't look at the floor constantly.

But man, they took what could have been a great story and made it boring. We never see any reenactments of the real film either, we see them about to start shooting, then the reactions of the Coppola and Ruddy. That sucked.

Ruddy was seriously miscast too. Miles Teller was not good and I like Miles.

But yeah, does make you want to watch the Godfather again and I probably watch it every couple years. But what a boring show.

I think told in a linier fashion this might have been a little more entertaining but the constantly shifting in times along with a bit of boring dialog, the thing just drags a lot. Just because it's a Holocaust story doesn't mean it's a great film.

Of course Ben Foster gives an oscar-worthy performance, no doubt. It's just not a well written or directed film. I wanted to love this because I think the story is great and is something that needs to be told but it needs to be told better than it was here.

A better script and director and Ben Foster again, this could have been great.

Just remember, anyone with any kind of camera can make a "movie" nowadays.

This is no different. Terrible acting, dumbest script ever, bad CGI that your grandma and After Effects can do and stock shots of disasters do not make a good movie.

The worst thing about these types of no-budget movies is they think having their bad "actors" have a lot of dialog somehow improves the movie. I realize they're trying to fill in 90 minutes so a lot has to be meaningless exposition but my God, if you invest in one thing in these bad no budget movies, invest in a writer. It's a given your "actors" will be awful, at least give them some somewhat interesting dialog to read.

Terrible and unwatchable. Note, one person did give this a ten in here. That person has one "review" to their credit. This one. Guess what movie that person worked on. I wish IMDB would be a kibosh on people giving tens to their own "movies" in here.

Avoid.

Yeah, what everyone says about Bruce Willis is true. He's barely in it and he just mumbles answers to Luke Wilson basically. Serves no purpose other than to say Bruce Willis was in this. The last few years this is the type of movie he does. Low budget, bad script that he's in only for a couple days work and a big pay day. What a terrible way to end a once great career.

But make no mistake, Luke Wilson was only in this for a pay day as well. He's incredibly one-dimensional and boring. Just gets tiresome watching him be the bad cop and spew the annoying lines he's given here.

But then you're left with the lead actor, who can't carry a movie. I don't know him, I didn't like him and I don't care what happens to him. He's trying to solve the crime he's being accused of but it's a hard watch. It's a seriously boring and cliched script. You wonder where they got the money for Wilson and Willis to be in this?

How does this get made. I made it 45 minutes in and had to stop, I was so bored. But 45 minutes in this travesty should get me some sort of award.

Honestly, it's a high school show. It's something you'd find on the CW if they allowed lots of nudity and swearing. But it's directed and edited very well. The editing is pretty incredible. And the actors are all good.

Problem is every character is severely unlikeable. That's not a problem if they're interesting but they are not. I honestly don't care about any of them. Literally the only one I found interesting was the drug dealer Fez and that says a lot.

There's long shots of drug induced periods that get tiresome. Yes, we get it, she's high, she's tripping. It gets boring real fast.

I see people here complaining about other negative reviews saying things like "cannot acquire a taste for the vulgarity of this" which is ridiculous. In this day and age where vulgarity is the norm on cable TV, that has nothing to do with why people don't like this. It's because the characters are unlikeable idiots and they're boring.

Visually it's a good show. There are some scenes that are unique and well done (the spinning bed from season 1. The "strobe" light lying on the bed where each "strobe" is a from a different shot - don't know how many people caught this but it's clever). But you still have to have a good story and this is not a good story.

Hard to find any fault with this film. One of the best if not the best Stephen King adaption (even he says this). The cast is so perfectly cast, you can't imagine anyone else in the roles. Hanks and Clarke were absolutely the best but honestly, everyone was incredible. Honestly though, justice would have had Michael Duncan Clarke winning the Oscar for this. You could not have cast a better person for this.

But the script is just the best, from top to bottom. I just imagine King initially writing this one - it just seems like it would have been one of his more fun books to write.

I love the mouse. The music is spectacular and it's hard to gage which movie is better for Darabont, this or Shawshank.

One of the all time greats.

I finally watched this film, as a fan of sports movies, hoping it might be okay. Woo, not remotely.

Starting from the very beginning with an opening theme song that seems like one of American Idol contenstants who come out and say "I'd like to do a song I wrote myself" and it's absolutely dreadful, this movie was bad.

The script had to be written in a day. Dr. J is the lead and his acting skills leave a lot to be desired (which is probably why his movie career ended here), however 80% of this movie is literally basketball "action." To call that NBA quality is like referring to the kids in the street throwing a football around "NFL quality." It's like watching some guys at a basketball pick up game but telling us it's a pro team.

And because most of the movie is on the court, it's super boring. There isn't anything remotely funny said or done in this despite having some funny talent like Jonathan Winters and Flip Wilson.

There just are not a lot of basketball movies so when you see one you want it to be good. This ain't it.

And the music throughout - man, it's bad 70s disco but I mean, BAD. Not just disco, really bad disco. The little dance-music group toward the end, it's jaw dropping terrible. Like most of this movie.

I'm not sure how this movie was received when it came out but it has not stood up well over time, that is for sure.

I really like a couple of these. I like the concept too. Each episode is done in a different style by different people. I thought the Looney Tunes one was pretty good. There were a couple others that were good, a couple watchable and a couple just awful.

The poop one done in anime was dreadfully awful. Just painful to get through. And that's what you remember about a show like this. The really terrible ones. The last one about the Asian couple was bad too. Why did the wife have no eyeballs? It was supposed to be about a loving couple in the Vaught world but it was pretentious and dumb.

Best is that each episode only comes in at around 15 minutes. Plus I love the dog at the beginning of each episode, a couple of them were laugh out loud funny.

I love the Boys itself, looking forward to the next season. If they put out more of these cartoons I'd watch again.