Reviews

It might have been a riveting story, but I couldn't get past the distracting colors. Almost all the scenes were an intense cyan, with the exception of flesh tones. This became fashionable in the movies about twenty years ago, but fortunately is less so now. It's reminiscent of the two-strip technicolor process of the 1920s, before the full range three-strip process was introduced. I have never understood the appeal. It seems almost to be used as a crutch in post production instead of decent production design in the original shoot. I realize I'm probably in a minority here, and this just comes across as an irrational and irelevant rant. But thats what it did to me. I gave up after about twenty minutes.

The glowing reviews for the first season are all well deserved. So the bar was set high for the series' return. Unfortunately it failed to deliver. Confusing (for an American) and mangled plots; overly melodramatic (which season on managed to avoid, despite its high drama); an episode with a gay character who wears drag was so poorly handled you have to wonder how it came into being (the lead even commits suicide at the end - so 1950s in its sensibilty); totally unrealistic fights.

I was a huge fan. But what had been an outstanding entry in the KDrama arena was just plain disappointing. Nine stars for the first season.

The first few episodes slowly hooked me. Cleverly constructed with many time warps, relying on the audience to work things out.

Of course the "based on" credit is something of a spoiler, but I tried to ignore it. Then in episodes 5 and 6 it became great.

Seeing one of America's greatest screen actresses performing in the background (on a TV), really woke me up. Then I knew why Holland wanted the role. It was a similar part that gave Joanne Woodward her Oscar, and this one could be an Emmy for Holland.

Now he showed his acting chops. Not in-your-face, but subtly. And at last I was genuinley moved, as opposed to fascinated, coming close to tears.

So glad I gave it a chance, and stayed with it.

First - I am addicted to this series. Beautifully written and acted. The concept that money and power bring only misery has to have a very broad appeal.

But - I almost gave up in the first episode because of the annoying camerawork. Random and unnecessay zooms in and out. The moment the camerawork draws attention to itself, a show is in trouble. The good news is that this style lessened as the season went on.

Another technical gripe. I am late to the game, and only in season two (at the last few episodes though). Yesterday when I sat down to enjoy another hour with this wonderfully disfunctional family, HBO MAX had become HBO. No problem there. The switch was seamless. However the show was suddenly in HDR. And a one time excellent picture looked like low class video (I am surprised to discover that it is actually shot on 35 mm film). I am now seeking ways to turn off the HDR.

Sorry about the gripes. It's otherwise great.

This series was recommended to me by someone whose tastes are similar to mine, so I was looking forward to it.

Most reviewers here say that it gets better, and to give it a chance, so I might persevere. But, beyond the basic premise for the show, episode one is disappointing. It just feels old-fashioned, a high end soap opera with expected characters, flag waving, and a belief that the audience wants to hear how wonderful we all are. Maybe if I hadn't watched an episode of "Ozark" earlier (this is always an edge-of-the-seat experience), I wouldn't have minded the dull, plodding, and predictable plot - basically formula television. The cast is pretty. But "must-see" television this is not.

Glossy expensive production, but filled with all the usual clichés. The plot is usually pushed forward by the characters talking about it ("tell" rather than "show"), and just about every action movie trope is here. When characters are fighting for their lives, they talk a lot.

The advance word of mouth was good, but the actual production is a huge disappointment.

Maybe OK for teenage boys looking for action and gore. Most adults will give it a pass after a couple of episodes (like a glutton for punishment, I stuck out to the end).

5 stars for expensive looking production values.

The opening sequence, shot in Jordan, suggests we are in for 20 episodes of action. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Office politics in a large Korean corporation. But don't switch this off.

As a westerner, much of what goes on is, well, 'foreign' to me. The hierarchy, the Korean sense of what is proper and who is to be respected, how to address your co-workers - most of these are very different in the society I was raised in. And the subtitles need some interpreting. But I couldn't stop watching.

It doesn't matter that some of the episodes revolve around arcane corporate issues. What does matter is how the leading characters handle the situations they are thrown into. And the writing doesn't let us off with the facile resolutions we have come to expect. It also avoids the easy 'office romance' - basically there aren't any, and the series is better for it.

I have to wonder if there is really so much shouting at work, and as much sexism today, or if alcohol consumption in the Korean business world is as shown here - but maybe this is an accurate portrayal, and livers don't last for long.

By the last few episodes I was devastated by what was happening to characters I had come to care deeply about.

There's almost a happy ending, which also explains the strange opening sequence in Jordan. But that's not really what this series is about.

Try it. Give in to it. And you'll surprise yourself by falling in love with the most unlikely people.

We all want to know about con men and con women. How did they get away with it? What's the secret to hoodwinking people who should have seen through the scam?

This is a famous, well-publicized case, taking place in the city where everyone comes to "make it", or be a part of "the scene". Anna chose well, and almost got away with it.

Unfortunately the first episode is one you just have to get through. Setting up characters and the basis of a story can be tough, and demands considerable skill; this episode needed much better writing. But it does get better after this, and soon you will be sucked in, just as were Anna's victims.

I'm a fan of Julia Garner. She does a great job here. However, if you have seen interviews with the 'real' Anna Sorikin (Delvey), her accent is much more subtle. Most of the other actors turn in high level performances - and there's plenty of talent here. My biggest quibble is with the portrayal of Vivian Kent - slightly over-ripe (yes, I know she's dealing with becoming and being a mother, but still it's too much).

Despite the quibbles, a thoroughly entertaining series.

And how did Anna get back on her feet again when she was released from jail? She sold her story to Netflix.

I caught this on Amazon's Prime streaming service. Unfortunately the image was stretched vertically, so everyone was tall and skinny. Amazon's tech acceptance team needs to get its act together.

That apart, the film is pretty terrible. No plot, except that a young man decides to become a gigolo. It's supposed to be about the lead having a large penis, but, of course, we never see that, although there are plenty of jiggly breasts. This is what porn films looked like before porn was legally available.

A clever concept that is well executed, It is glossy and professionally made in a way we've come to expect from South Korea's booming entertainment industry.

The casting of the two leads is inspired. Hyun Bin is charismatically handsome playing the North Korean captain with almost superhero powers (although comes across as much less sensually attractive after his South Korean makeover). There are parallels with the sort of appeal that Cary Grant had at his peak. An excellent performance that is so subtle that he can make your tears well up with just the slightest change in facial expression. He is matched with the brilliant Son Ye-jin, whose character has more variation as the story progresses, giving her more to get her acting teeth into. The captain's loyal crew provide much of the comedy (which fits into the overall mood of the piece, and never descends into cartoonlike behavior) and are well performed supporting roles, as is the main villain of the piece.

The series is not without its faults however, One or two of the older actors needed to have been held back. They give performances more suited for the stage than the intimacy of a television screen. These stood out against the subtle and believable acting of the leads. The director has to be faulted for allowing these to mar the otherwise excellent production.

And there were a number of grammatical errors in the shooting and editing which were disorienting. It's OK to break these rules so long as you do so knowingly, aware of the effect of doing so. They mostly felt like sloppy mistakes. Again the director needs to own these, Two stars were lost for these flaws.

And lets face the fact that it did not need to be as long as it is. The endless replaying of scenes, and repetitive flashbacks all felt like padding, as though the production company was being paid by the second of airtime.

Despite these complaints, I was completely sucked in, wanting, wanting for the two leads to admit what we could all see, tears running down my face when they started to acknowledge each other's feelings. Often laughing out loud. Forcing myself not to binge, rationing to one episode at a time (except for the last two, which turned out to be the weakest).

If you can cope with a long very soapy action love story, with compellingly beautiful leads, set in the two Koreas, go for it. You'll have a ball (and a bawl).

I know this series is beyond popular, but I cannot get beyond Kim Seon-Ho's lipstick.

Makeup on a man has to be very subtle. It isn't here.

The plot is so-so. Everything seems to be predictable. Romcoms can be better than this. Some subtlety to the characters maybe.

But ,,,,, the lipstick.

Maybe if I had watched this film in the mid-90s I would have enjoyed it more. Finding it in 2021 on Amazon Prime, I expected more from a BBC production, and was disappointed. The writing stumbled from one cliche to another, almost everything that happened was telegraphed and expected. The characters had little to no subtlety and behaved predictably. Maybe the style reflects television drama of the time, and we are expecting more complexity and depth now. Short scenes, mostly shot in medium closeups , were appropriate to standard definition television of the time, but the style feels dated now.

The almost universally positive reviews from others date from the 1990s, so it might be unfair to review it from a much later perspective. A few smart lines here and there, a message that literature and poetry matter, some humor, but overall a miss.

The story behind this movie is the slaughter of.many hundreds (thousands?) of Slovenians at the end of WW2, without doubt a war crime. Unfortunately the film maker does not have the skills to take on this enormous task.

A few of the actors manage to make their characters almost believable, but they are not helped by a stilted script. Unfortunately, some of the others are embarrassingly bad. The staging is ok in places, in others it is clumsy. Editing is fair, though old fashioned. The cameras are either not very good, or badly used (see constant over-exposures).

The score is fine.

I stuck with this because the synopsis indicated it had an important story to tell. And the synopsis was right. Maybe someone else will do it justice.

Five stars for the underlying story.

A disappointment.

This is a clever concept, Here are many moving stories, beautifully photographed, and the series is almost excellent. But it is spoiled by some over-acting. I know that this is common in many Asian movies, and is widely accepted, but does not have to be the case. Look at the success of recent Korean movies which have won acting awards.. In this case, a little holding back, "being" the character instead of "acting" the character would have added two more stars.

I understand that this series is made for Koreans and I can be accused of cultural elitism, but the fact is that it is being distributed world-wide on Netflix, where we are now regularly exposed to films and TV series from around the world. Standards are very high.

Despite my reservations, I intend to watch all episodes.

Edit: Maybe a little unfair. There are some fine performances here also. Geu Ru's father, Yoon Na Mu's father, the tailor - are all good and believable Sorry I cannot find the names of these actors.

If you lived in the UK in the 1950s and 60s (as I did), and are a Python fan, you will find this irresistible. Growing up as a kid listening to The Goon Show on the radio, I know exactly how they were influenced.

The way this disparate group found each other, and how they developed the way they did is well told, and at times laugh-out-loud funny. My only tiny quibble is that it is implied that David Frost was the founder of "That Was The Week That Was". He was the on air talent, and made famous by that show, but the production and writing team, headed by Ned Sherrin, deserve most of the credit there.

Audrey Hepburn's life is covered well and movingly. Audio of her telling her own story and archival interviews are a big plus. However, there are some surprising omissions of film performances. Of course, licensing and clearing clips is notoriously expensive, so some missing films are to be expected. But it is surprising to find no mention of "Charade"; Universal is credited as "presenting" this portrait, and Universal owns "Charade." There is probably an interesting back-story here.

Hepburn's early life is well-known and in itself dramatic, her later commitment to UNICEF is very moving., and the bits in-between are well told here. But the biggest flaws are the use of reconstructed scenes and the ballet sequences. It's quite likely that the project was sold on the basis of the new dance elements, and the film-maker clearly fell in love with them. But they just get in the way of what is already compelling and moving story.

The opening shot will tell you that this is going to be a beautiful film (kudos to director Khau, and cinematographer Kracun). It is also a beautifully made film, telling the story of a young man rediscovering the country where he was born, but hasn't seen since his distant childhood. Rarely is a scene laid out ABCD, but almost always with subtlety, slowly revealing information that the audience is expected to piece together. One reviewer feels it is underwritten - but maybe it is just written enough. Some will not have the patience for this, Some will get hung up on the lead character being gay, and reject the film out of hand. But there is so much more here. And when you reach below the surface, many of the scenes are deeply moving. For Henry Golding this is a surprising follow-up to his starring part in Crazy Rich Asians, and shows that he has real acting chops. David Tran, Parker Sawyers, and Molly Harris all have substantial roles and deliver the goods. Don't be put off by the dismal ratings some have given this film. It's skillfully written, directed, shot, and acted. Give it a try and you will be well rewarded.

A very promising first feature by Omar Flores Sarabia. For a while it feels slow paced, but in some ways that is the essence of this film, and also its beauty. An immature young man, alone for the weekend while his parents are at the beach, meets someone slightly older, but just as alone. They appear mismatched; certainly from different social backgrounds, but it is the slow and inevitable coming together that makes the film so compelling. A videocamera belonging to the younger and richer of the two becomes a clever tool in the telling of the story, which could so easily have become a bore. Spot on performances and fine imagery here. With a cast of two and a minuscule crew, Sarabia has produced a small gem. And the peyote? That's just a MacGuffin.

Full of revelations and well made. However it spends plenty of time on the early days, and then feels rushed when dealing with pivotal events in the later years. It seems as though Netflix only moved into the streaming world because Blockbuster was trying it out - but I'm not sure about that. And Blockbuster's demise, when it looked as though it might survive, is also only vaguely explained. Similarly Netflix's vital decision to get into original production. Maybe it is explained, but not very clearly. So leisurely and well detailed about the origins and early years, but glossing over big events which occurred later. Still very enjoyable

When The Boys in the Band arrived in 1968 it was a landmark play, but as a gay man it upset me. The characters represented all that I disliked about gay "culture", the bitchiness, the backstabbing, the self-hatred. This was not what I wanted the rest of the world to see as an example of who we are. But maybe this was the only sort of play about gay life that could have made it into the mainstream and had an impact back then. So it was with very mixed feelings that I made myself watch this 2020 movie version of the classic play.

Now, as a remembrance of a different time, that many gay people never experienced, one of repression and hiding, it feels like a revelation. And I can understand that Mart Crowley deserves his place as a pioneering hero. The many now-classic lines are delivered as though they are brand new. The performances, which could so easily be over-the-top, are spot on, just getting to the edge, but not going over it. And there is a line, which I had somehow forgotten, and which is delivered by one of the lesser characters, the birthday-present hustler, that took my breath away. In a making-of extra (well worth watching) Mart Crowley admits that he stole the words from a real-life rent boy he once met on Fire Island. And watch carefully Crowley's reaction when he tells the story; it is exactly what I felt when I heard it in the film.

This is a time capsule of one aspect of gay life before Stonewall, before the many tragedies and deaths that would soon follow. It is a movie everyone who was involved should be proud of. I take my hat off to them all. And I am so glad I made myself watch something I was expecting to despise. Maybe 8 stars are not enough.

I found this on Amazon Prime. The premise had great possibilities and the Imdb rating was high, so I decided to dive in. The first episode can only be described as disappointing. Visually it feels old fashioned (I''e only discovered here that it started shooting in 20009, so that could be a reason). Even home TV audiences are now used to cinematic flair, but this feels very much designed for a small screen. But that is a minor complaint, a bigger issue is the script; there is no subtlety at all. The well-off sawmill owner is about to leave home and take his kid to a school outing, when his wife asks if it is safe. "of course it is" he replies - so we immediately know that it is not. As soon as he leaves, the wife heads for the liquor cabinet, takes out a decanter of some amber liquid, and chugs from it. There had to be a more subtle way to tell us that she is an alcoholic. The husband goes o a nearby farm to get some chickens for dinner. As soon as we see the farmers wife, we know what is coming next. Too many plot points were plugged into the first episode. Taking time to introduce the complexities of the story would have paid off. Everything felt too obvious. Tease the audience a little. Let them find things out from subtle clues. We know the Germans will arrive before anyone expects them. Make that arrival more dramatic - maybe the first armored car shows up as the last shot of episode one. So far it feels like a very big missed opportunity. I'll give it another try. There has to be a reason for so many good reviews here.

There's no doubt that this is a remarkable collection of great acts from the mid 60's, and some outstanding performances too. It's good to see it available now in it's original version. But what could have been great loses three stars for its soundtrack - an element that is perhaps more important than the visuals. Yes, it was mixed live, and not too badly under the circumstances, but whoever made the decision to keep a constant level of audience screaming throughout pretty much all the songs did the performers no favors.

Beautifully performed LA version of the Broadway musical. The actors, singers, dancers all on the top of their form. And the translating of the show to TV was excellent - until it came to the dance numbers. In short, these were ruined in the editing room. Just because you can cut to another shot, doesn't mean that you should. Fred Astaire had control over how his dances were filmed and insisted in full head-to-toe shots, with little or no cutting to different angles. This might seem like an austere approach, but it worked brilliantly. Gene Kelly went a step further and also produced brilliant results. It is difficult as a director to reign in the impulse to be flashy and put your mark on what you are shooting, but with dance this has to be resisted. Rob Marshall almost ruined Bob Fosse's brilliant choreography in the movie version of "Chicago". Here we have some of the world's best stage dancers giving it their all, and the director and editor got in their way. What a shame.

Very loosely based on a real-life story, this film is saved by the glorious music it contains. If it were not for Bong Joon-ho's "Parasite", it would be considered OK Korean film-making. But now the bar has been set very high, with "Parasite" winning or being nominated for many awards. Now acting is expected to have some subtlety. 'Indicating' as Lee Strasberg called it, is not good enough, the audience has to believe the emotions an actor is showing - pretending doesn't cut it. And mugging for the camera is just embarrassing. So the lead roles almost get a pass here, a couple of the gangsters get a pass +, and the comedy routines are embarrassing. Maybe it's unfair to judge a film from 2013 by 2019 standards. But blame Bong Joon-ho for that. Korean film-making is now alongside the very best One other thought: when we are waiting for the lead to finally sing (and yes, we are made to wait - which is OK), we know he's going to be good, but it's still a big dramatic moment, so we are looking to see whether the amazing voice we are about to hear can reasonably belong to the lead actor. Unfortunately in the version available on Amazon Prime streaming, the voice is considerably out of sync with the lips. So the illusion is broken - and we don't believe he's singing. This would be easy for the editor to make right, so is there an issue with the print/file being used for US audiences? Or was the editor just sloppy?

And yet - despite all the above, it is an enjoyable film. The singing will give you goose-bumps. Made a few years later, it would likely have been more than just OK.