Reviews

Wow. This movie is bad. It is horrible. The writers of the movie have no concept of logic.

Ya know, if I am going to watch a Superman movie I am going to accept the idea that an alien comes to Earth with super powers. But the story about Superman is that he has his limitations. If you attacked Superman with a gun he will destroy you. If you attacked Superman with Kryptonite you might have a chance on defeating him.

This movie is about people that discover they have superhero powers. Yet the adversaries are able to attack these super heroes directly with their powers, and the super heroes can do nothing about it.

The storyline goes against logic. That is what makes this movie asinine and ridiculous.

This movie is intentionally weird. All the characters look ridiculous. So ridiculous I found their likenesses to be disturbing. Every character is off the wall wacko, but not in a funny or interesting way. But in a macabre, twisted world way. I would not like any of these characters in my life at all because they are just that screwed up. That means there is no hero or heroine in the movie. There is no character you fall in love with and root for. The story is essentially non-existent. It's not intriguing or captivating. In most cases when a movie is this bad I just turn it off. In this case I was curious to see if it got an better, so I watched it to the end. Nope. I should have turned it off.

I see a lot of 10 out 10 star ratings. I can only assume those are created by people who have vested interest in the movie. It may be producers, writers, or directors posting those ratings. "Napoleon Dynamite" was a great weird movie with weird characters. This one is at the other end of the spectrum.

I'll try not to give any spoilers, but this is the general idea of the movie.

The movie opens up to state there was some catastrophic war that caused an extinction of all human life, and perhaps the extension of all mammals on earth. A robot exists in a facility that has all it needs to sustain human life, but is totally cut off from the outside world. The robot oversees thousands of human embryos in an effort to restart the human species. The first third of the movie is about that robot called "Mother" who is raising one female embroyo to adolescence.

As a teen the human begins to question the robot's teachings. Is there anything alive outside our facility? Am I truly the only human alive on earth?

As the movie rolls on we find that another human comes to the door of the facility for help. This is the moment the teen realizes she is not the only human alive on the earth. From that point on the movie bounces back and forth between the two sides. Who is right? Is is the human found at the door who says all robots are evil? Or is it the nurturing robot named "Mother" who claims lies, pestilence, and disease come with the stranger they rescued at their door.

It sounds like a good plot, but the way it is executed sucks. I was left not knowing that either side was the good side. I was left to think everything sucks and there will never be a winner. I was left to feel this move, and life, was hopeless. And that is an awesome feeling. *sarcasm*

The actresses featured in this movie are incredibly talented.That being said you wold think that a mediocre script writer could create a movie that would entice the masses. Nope. Whoever wrote and directed this film had no idea of the talent they had in their hand. This ended up as a great premise for a film but horribly executed. Terrible movie for the talent acquired for the acting.

This movie is bad. Terrible story. It numbs your mind. Horrible, horrible, horrible story. I watched 3/4ths of the movie before I turned it off. I kept going on and on and on hoping something in the move would pop up to make it interesting or send a message. Nope. It's a boring ass movie with nothing in the script to keep you glued to the story. Horrible, horrible movie.

I tend to like movies where the main characters are teenagers because the plot is going to be simple. I can fall to sleep peacefully while watching these movies because there is nothing mentally disturbing going on in the movie. In teen movies there is no "OMG! Let's evaluate the necessity of mankind's existence in the universe!" No, the worst thing that happens in teen movies is, "Jason said Becky said I had a fat ass! OMG! How horrible is that?"

So I watch teen movies to numb my mind and put me to sleep.

This movie is so mind numbing that I cannot even recommend it to put you to sleep! OMG what a horrible movie it is!

Horrible acting, horrible direction, horrible script....It just all adds up for a horrible movie.

Pass on this movie, even if it is for fee via Netflix.

My apologies to Marianna Palka, but this is a terrible movie. I am fully able to accept the plot where a woman suffers a mental breakdown and takes on the personality of a dog. Yes, she literally thinks she is a dog, and not a friendly family dog, but a mean, aggressive one. She has a terrible and unfaithful husband who leaves all the stress of running a household and caring for 4 kids squarely on her shoulders. It appears she takes on the personality of a dog because dogs have no responsibilities.

What makes the story unbelievable are the characters. The dad is such a bad dad that he doesn't know the name of his kids' school. His four kids go to a private school so he is obviously paying several thousand dollars a year. I can understand a bad father being out of touch, but he is spending that kind of money and he doesn't know where his money is going? That's pretty hard to believe.

Then when the older kids get dropped off at middle school they ask for lunch money. He hands them a $100 bill and asks, "Is this enough?" Really? Is the writer trying to show the dad is that far out of touch? Or is she trying to show us how frantic the dad has become since mom's disappearance.

The two older kids are in middle school. Yet, when mom starts acting like a dog those two young teenage kids think it's funny. The way the scene is directed it is not funny, it is disturbing. Mom has been missing for a whole day. Dad and the mother's sister come into the home after frantically searching the neighborhood for her, and the kids are laughing doing kids things like playing video games. The kids happened to locate their mother. She is in the basement, stripped of all her clothing, covered in her own fecal matter, and literally acting exactly like a vicious dog. If this happened to my mom when I was 12 or 13 I would be incredibly upset and worried. I wouldn't be laughing at the situation.

He's also been married to his wife for a while as the oldest is 13 years old, yet he doesn't know the name of his sister in law's husband. His wife's sister does not live across the country. She lives in the same city, and the two sisters appear to be very close. Despite this the dad doesn't know the name of the man his sister in law has been married to for years? That's ridiculous.

When it becomes obvious the mom needs professional help, the family doctor is called in. He refers them to a professional who deals with these sorts of situations. It's not said in the movie, but this other professional must be a psychiatrist. A real general practitioner with an M.D. is not going to refer an obviously mentally disturbed person to a self-help guru. Additionally, this second professional can write prescriptions. After the examination the sister asks the psychiatrist for an official medical term for her condition. The doctor's answer? "Acting like a dog." Not funny, but stupid. No real psychiatrist is going to say that.

I love a good goofy movie. Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell movies have their place. In a good, silly movie the dad can be so bad as to not know the name of the kids' schools or their own brother in law. The silly psychiatrist in the silly movie may have an official diagnosis of "acting like a dog". However, this movie isn't directed like a silly movie. It's trying to be a realistic, dark comedy. Sadly, it cannot be said that the director didn't see the writer's vision and tried to turn a silly movie into a more realistic comedy because the director IS the writer.

This week Stephen Spielberg said movies on Netflix should not be eligible to win Oscsars. Don't worry Stephen, they're not going to win any Oscars.

I enjoy movies for the same reason many people love novels. They're an escape. A great story will take you on a journey through different worlds and will cause you to commit emotionally to it. I appreciate great acting, great direction, great cinematography, and great special effects. Some movie fans appreciate those technical aspects even more so than I because they are what make a movie "art". They can enjoy a movie merely because of superb performances of its cast regardless of the story. But, for me, I cannot call a movie "great" unless it tells a great story.

"A Serious Man" had some great acting. It did transport me to a different world. For a short while I lived as a middle class Jewish man in the 1970's. Those are the only good things I have to say about the movie.

For me "A Serious Man" was a waste of time. The description on Netflix said, "His wife wants out. His son's a pothead. His rabbi can't help him. Poor schlub. He could do worse, but not by much." That is exactly what happens in the movie. That and nothing else. This is one of those movies where stuff happens to characters in the movie, but nothing gets resolved. Nothing is finalized. Nothing is settled. Nothing is explained.

I said earlier I did feel like I was a middle class Jewish man in the 1970's. That is only because the movie makers did a good job of re-creating that world with cars, costumes, music, and props of the era. However, I would prefer reading about this era and lifestyle from an encyclopedia versus spending 115 minutes watching this movie. An encyclopedia article would have as much closure as this storyline does, it would take only a fraction of the time, and it would be equally as enjoyable.

I was left so unfulfilled and dissatisfied by the movie that I had to look it up to find more about it. Who made this piece of garbage? Did it go direct to DVD? Was it a college art student's project film? That's when I found out it was written by the Cohen brothers, and it was nominated for best original screenplay and best picture. It's pretty clear the only people that like this movie are the art snobs, exactly the kind of people at the Academy. If this is an example of a "best original screen play" and "best movie" nominee I can understand why we have so many super hero movies coming out now days.

I watched this movie as it was recently added to the Netflix catalog. It was billed as a comedy, so I thought I would give it a shot. I am sorry I did.

Why was the movie so bad? It was bad because it did nothing for me. I didn't make me laugh even though Netflix tried to bill it as a comedy. It is a fake documentary about the men dying off due to evolution, but it didn't make me think about relationships between men and women, either sexual or social. It didn't make me think about the feminists' view of history history that all the wars were started because that's what men do. This was just a really, bland movie.

I would have given it two stars but the actors were good. It is just too bad they were given horrible material.

I am shocked to see IMDb give this an overall rating of 6.2 stars. This is a small, independent movie that not many have seen. I honestly believe the rating has been skewed by people who made the movie voting for it. One of the reviews I read had to have been from someone involved in making the movie. The last line of the 10 star review said "Our leading man..." Not "THE leading man...." Bad, boring, unfunny, un-thought provoking movie.

I'm taking time to write a review due to the quality of the performances given by the actors in this movie. I just watched it on Netflix. The description says "Starring Julia Stiles, David Koechner, Michael Cera". That isn't accurate. Cera is in two scenes and Stiles' appearance is even shorter. IMDb says the budget was $1 million, so there is no way they could afford to pay the salaries those names would command as stars.

The real stars of the movie were Meredith Hanger and Matt Walsh. Matt is a character actor who has been in countless TV shows and movies. Meredith is an up and comer who got her start in soap operas. The characters they and the rest of the cast create are what really make the movie work. In that sense it's similar to "Napoleon Dynamite". If a fan of the movie is asked, "What is 'Naopleon Dynamite' about?" The fan wouldn't describe the plot of the move. Instead, the response would be, "Those guys are just funny. You'd just have to watch it to get it."

Meredith's "Katelyn" is a naive young lady who wants nothing more than to be famous. Does she want to be a pop singer? Or a movie star? Or the host of a TV show? It doesn't matter. She just wants to be a celebrity. Unfortunately she doesn't seem to have the talent or the resourcefulness to become one.

Matt's "Dave" is as equally clueless as his daughter, Katelyn. Dave sees himself as the last bastion standing for freedom and liberty against the tyranny of his small town mayor and her evil henchmen called city councilmen. To see how this develops and affects his daughter you're going to have to watch the movie.

Another reviewer stated the movie has too many unnecessary scenes. I have to agree with that. It's probably my biggest gripe of the film. The writer/director would have done himself a favor if he had brought in a second party to give him ideas on the storyline and/or editing of the movie to make the movie flow more smoothly by getting rid of the superfluous scenes or dialog.

Aside from the acting I appreciated the message it sent about today's impact of social media. Never before has Andy Warhol's quote about everyone getting 15 minutes of fame been more true. It's shown in a comedic light, but you can honestly see how ridiculous it is for people like the Kardashians to be famous for no reason, or how the public can try and convict someone after watching a 90 second video on YouTube.

Overall its a quirky, independent film that will appeal to those who appreciate subtle comedy provided by talented actors creating over the top characters.

This is a stupid movie, and I mean it as a compliment.

Stupid movies have their place in this world. Sometimes it's great to just laugh. Sometime you don't want to think, you don't want a deep, introspective message, you just need a laugh. This movie nailed it for me.

It's a parody of romantic comedies, and it hammers nearly all the clichés. As with this style of movie, the story and plot do not matter. It's all about the jokes, and the writers of this movie did a great job. Amy Poehler and Paul Rudd perfect as the leads. This style of comedy is a great vehicle to showcase Amy's comedic style honed during her stint on Saturday Night Live. Paul Rudd has been a Rom Com lead, and he's also shown he has the knack for stupid movie acting with roles in everything from "40 Year Old Virgin" to "Role Models" to "Anchorman 2".

The people that panned this movie must have a pole up their tailpipe. I imagine they're the types that think Sundance Film Festival movies are too mainstream and commercial. Hey, they're allowed to be like that. I'm just glad I'm not one of them.

Oh...and once you've watched the movie you'll laugh at the joke I hid in this review.

The movie was recently added to Netflix recently. I had never heard of it, but I gave it a shot as Nexflix had rated it 4 of 5 stars. Wow did they miss on this movie.

When I watch a movie I like to be told a story. The best movies leave you with some kind of message. It can be a deep or complex message like the one I received from "Slingblade" that sin is not black and white. Or it could be a simple message like the one I got from "Transformers" that big, living alien robots blowing up stuff is cool.

I could not follow the story in this movie. This 88 minute movie had less dialog than average comic book. Without the dialog one must rely on the images to understand what is happening to our character. Yet the editing and direction are terrible. There are countless scenes where I found myself thinking, "What happened there? Did I miss something?" I would end up rewinding to repeat the scene, and I found that I did not miss anything. "Oh well, perhaps something will happen later that will make sense out of that scene." Nope. Either the director did not set up the shot correctly, he did not get his actors to preform in a manner that would convey the message he intended, or the editor did not use the right clip to convey the message to the viewer.

The Netflix summary offers a little more info than the one here on IMDb, so I don't think I'm offering a spoiler here. It says the newlywed suffers a tragedy and leaves her husband and successful job on a personal spiritual journey. That synopsis appealed to me. Unfortunately, I was never able to understand what the lead character was looking for. I could see that after her tragedy she began to question whether the typical "American Dream" of a big house, a fancy car, and a large family was the best that life had to offer. In her spiritual journey she started seeking the Christian God. But by the end of the movie I was only left with questions about what it was she was seeking, or what she was going to do to find that inner peace, or whether or not she even found it!

The character development is totally unbelievable. The script and the director did a terrible job of justifying her decision to leave her husband. If the director was trying to make the husband look like a heartless jerk who was more concerned about his career and getting ahead than his marriage and his wife, he did a terrible job.

Here is more terrible character development. At one point in the movie we find our lead character was a competitive cheerleader in high school. Have you seen these girls on ESPN? The are full of pep, full of energy, and they always have bright eyes and huge smiles. Yea, some of that is merely acting for the judges, but you can't be a competitive cheerleader unless some of that personality comes naturally. Our lead character is morose, slow, and quiet. If she was once a cheerleader it's as if she is now on too high a dosage of Xanax.

I am a person of faith and I thought I was going to see a thought provoking movie about finding an inner strength to overcome adversity. All I found was a boring, slow movie with bad writing and character development that had no message of any kind for the viewer. I would have given it one star, but this would be a good movie to watch to put you to sleep.

Maher considers himself to be an intelligent, funny man who apparently doesn't believe in God. In this movie he attempts to show how ridiculous it is to believe in God by interviewing average people and people who have beliefs out on the fringe. The reason he chose these people is because the average person isn't used to debating their faith with a quick witted comedian, and those on the fringe are...well...often batty.

Maher is intellectually sparring with people who are not equipped to debate. He mocks them and their lack of intelligence, and at times, these people don't even realize he is mocking them. These interviews just feed his ego, and the movie will make some of you sick with the false air of superiority he radiates from the screen.

Maher doesn't have the guts to interview someone equipped to address his challenges. My local parish priest would rip him to shreds in a debate about our faith and the existence of God.

I love a very wide variety of comedy and comedians. I love the clean guys like Jeff Foxworthy and I can also laugh at Lisa Lampanelli and George Carlin. However, I have no respect for Maher. Maher's attempts to get a laugh by humiliating and embarrassing people.

For me this movie fails in three ways. As a comedy, I can't laugh at the public humiliation of innocents. As an informative documentary it just doesn't offer any real facts at all. As a charming piece of entertainment it is spoiled by the arrogance of the host.

I'm a Christian. I'm also extremely open-minded and a logical thinker. Yea, I know we all consider ourselves to be this way, but I've had more than one close friend say that I'm the most level headed person they know. They say I am willing to see things from another person's viewpoint better than anyone they know. When presented with an argument that contradicts my opinion or my belief, I pride myself in being able to consider the other person's position...that is, as long as they are willing to discuss the matter in an intelligent, civil manner. Brian Williams cannot do this.

I had been debating internally whether or not to watch the movie. Not because I was afraid my faith would be shaken, but because I didn't know if I wanted to spend 90 minutes of my life listening to something that might be someone else's ludicrous argument. For example, I had seen Bill Maher's "Religuous" and it was full of asinine statements. He interviewed people who were just ordinary folks or fringe believers, and he mocked them. He didn't have the guts to debate experts who have studied the religion. The priest of my local parish would have ripped Maher to shreds in a debate over religion.

So, I took a chance and started the movie. Right off the bat Williams starts with poor logic then he insults me. The movie starts out saying the church once believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. Since they were wrong about that could they be wrong about other things? This is poor logic because nowhere in our dogma does it say that salvation required a follower to believe the Sun revolved around the Earth. Human's lack of understanding of the mechanics of the universe, and their insistence on adhering to a false understanding of those mechanics, doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God, either.

Williams then immediately jumped into a series of short quips of Christians explaining who Jesus was (i.e. "the Son of God" or "the Messiah, the Saviour of the World"). Williams narration points out that these Christians are smiley, happy people, but not all Christians are like them. He then starts rolling a series of pictures of deranged people who have committed horrific acts in the name of God.

Screw you, Williams. These people were not followers of God. They were insane. Your insinuation that Christians are evil, disturbed people or a belief in God drives people to commit atrocious acts is insulting to me. Because of the nature of humans there are good and bad people in EVERY aspect of life! If you want to debate the existence of Jesus, fine. If you want to do it by insulting me and my faith, then you're on your own.

I turned off the movie after 3 minutes.

There are basically two types of art fans. There are those who love art because of the way it makes them feel. It can be a painting of a beautiful landscape, or a series of random colors on a canvas, but they love the feeling they get - the memories or dreams that are envoked - when they look at it. The art can be disturbing, but the emotion it envokes might still be a good one, such as overcoming a personal fear.

The second type of art fan loves art for art's sake. A piece of art that does not evoke emotion is not quality art. It doesn't matter if that emotion is anger, resentment, fear, love, compassion, devotion, etc. As long as the art moves the viewer in some way, it is art. It doesn't matter if the art is ugly and repulsive.

Those that gave the movie a good rating are art lovers of the second type. I am an art lover of the first type.

This script makes no sense. Even for a sci-fi/fantasy movie, it makes no sense. It is not deep. It does not make you think. It's stupid.

Oh, the people who love movies will say, "You just don't 'get' it. It's over your head. You're too dense to understand quality art" Whatever. I don't have to prove anything to them.

If you're a movie fan that likes a good story that engages you, enwraps you, then makes you feel good at the end, this movie is not for you.

If you're more concerned about impressing a professor of filmmaking at SUNY or UCLA than admitting you really did like The Notebook, then this movie is for you.