Reviews

In 1968 countless theatre goers walked out of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: a space odyssey. Should have won Best Picture. And here in 2014 IMDb is giving Interstellar an 8.6 rating . I found this latest film over the top unbelievable! And incredibly silly. The top cast did give a good performance, but felt the acting of both Michael Cain and Matt Dillon not worthy of this script. The entire third act was choreographed wonderfully but again unbelievable and extremely hard to follow.

168 minutes was also much too long ., could have been edited to 2 hours . I do give creedance to Christopher Nolan his eye to detail, and didn't include audio to outside space travel, just as Stanley Kubrick did for his Space Opera 50 years before, but the overall audience didn't buy that film eithe.

Sorry. I give a 6 rating .

Bit disappointed the series was not in high definition and a 4:3 aspect ratio in 480p. But beggars can't be choosers, the set decorations were above average. British production as always is very good.

Found it a bit of a problem trying to listen to the soundtrack. Mumbling and low whispers in areas where subtitles would help me to follow the script.

Im pretty sure your typical billionaire family does not curse as fluently as this whole family does. Are the writers trying to attract viewers below the age of 30?? My only complaint!!

I understand CGI effects to keep the costs drastically down in a big action movie, but actors too? The first 10 minutes are unmistakably Cartoonish!

First of all this title should be Being Frank ' period! No 'you can /can't choose your family., terrible terrible title not to say the title also gives away the plot instead of being surprised 15 ministers in. Also what's with this $67,000 box office revenue ? Typo or extremely poor marketing? This title and movie should have gone straight to Netflix ( do not pass Go) . I hope the marketing team was fired for this stupid idea of spending close to a year to get it in the theatres. When streaming is the new media for 2 star movies.

Lovely location shots mediocre story ., but I'm only 60 minutes into the 80 min story . Could be a great twist at the end??

Wanted to point out that the 1967 20th Century Fox film The Film Flam Man starring George C Scott and Michael Sarrazin has never see digital media. No laser discs were ever made, and now in its 14th year, no DVD either. This wonderful panavision comedy, and cast along with an excellent soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith is just crying out to be made in 5.1 surround and 2:35.1 widescreen. All prints on TV are purple in texture, and the VHS, though as good as we can get now, is full screen. I have heard rumors that AMC has run this film in widescreen. But AMC doesn't reach all the populace in every region on cable TV. I have written many letters on different forums and also to Fox themselves, but never a peep from the studio when a DVD may be in the works. Can others help me and others like me, to get this gem on video in proper form??

I was watching the program NBC ran on Saturday evening, (channel 5 King TV Seattle) called "Game Shows Most Outrageous Moments" with 5 of the old hosts from years by like Bob Eubank, Wink Martindale etc.., well this show had words like 'nipples,' and 'penis's', 'breasts and erections' etc etc..

it was after all a funny show with funny words in embarassing situations, and we were hooked/duped 15 minutes into the show that we would be treated to an embarassing situation that happened in 1977 on the Dating game with Bob Eubanks, and we were going to witness it for the first time on TV after all these years.

So I waited and waited until finally the segment ran,, and what did NBC do? It bleeped the word and I have NO idea what the joke was. the word bleeped started with the letter A, and it was to do with where this couple had made love once in an unusual place. I belive she said 'anus', and if that was the word,, "WHY ws it bleeped ???"

Come on now.. What was the punch line????????

and why would you bleep it???

saw this film last night on pay tv, and it was the first time i have ever run across this film either on tape or TV. The subject matter must have been a bit risque for the earlier 60's and there was even a quick nude shot of the leading actress in a reflection of a mirror.. the black and white photography was good, as it reflects the era of the early 60's and in color would not have given any benefit to the material shot in England or Wales.