Reviews

This is obviously a doctoral project for the producer, who is seen on camera in the guise of an expert historian and identified as a "PhD candidate". There are gaps and holes and misinterpretations. The demonization of native Americans by politicians, the press, the pulpit and elsewhere are not given much attention. There is little prehistory, such as the actions of Jefferson, Monroe and others. Nothing is said of suc false heroes as Kit Carson. The reenactments are good and, fortunately, not repeated over and over like some documentaries. Overall, it comes off as a suburban white kid's view of history. Honestly, it takes more than three years in graduate school to develop a deep understanding of the subject. There are far better documentaries are out there.

This movie is worth watching simply because it is so very weird. It is a walking contradiction with the director jumping in now and then to narrate the weirdness with what is supposed to be humor. It is like seven different movies all masked together - one for each of the characters and each one by a different writer. The Irish lieutenant is a complete caricature of comic relief, right down to singing Irish ditties. Others are provided with character development akin to signs hung on their necks and some having development without any reason for it.

This is honestly the most peculiar detective movie ever made. It should be viewed just for its odd nature, if nothing else. It probably wouldn't be out of place for viewers to be on hallucinogens while viewing. Film students? Watch this movie just for the fodder for conversation. This is so odd....

They made good stories from the footage, which itself is quite nice, but two things detract. One is the narrator (UK version) John Boyega who is African-descended but not African, identifying himself as one of the animals. It is very corny. What is worse is the lyrics to the music - "mother is dead," says one and, "must be strong," says another. This is as corny as the series theme song which is four notes for the four syllables (the oldest trick in the book for the unimaginative). These things definitely yank the viewer out of the visual experience. (I almost expected to hear the lyrics, "end of episode one....")

Other than that, it is a good series.

While many are aware of TR's African adventure, his trip through the Amazon has received little attention. The story is well told, the writing is great, the editing is also excellent, and there is none of the constant recycling of images as is seen in the majority of documentaries out there. A major failing is the decision to process all the jungle scenes and recreations in black and white. Obviously the intention was to match the still images but was an idiotic decision - over an hour of jungle footage with zero color. Although unintended, the hunger to see potentially beautiful images rendered in variants of tar underlined the participants' desperate need to get out of that jungle. Frankly, it came to almost ruining the project. It certainly reduced the enjoyment by half.

This is a western version of the tween adventure drama genre. It begins well but some things don't ring true, particularly the characterizations of men - the opposite of how male writers mischaracterized women for generations. There are a couple of places where it directly rips off Dances With Wolves - conquistador helmet, Indian pledging friendhip while yelling white person's Indian name from a distance.. I found myself waiting for Two Socks to show up. Frankly, it looks like the writer copied things from a number of specific films.

Some scenes show little understanding of various cultures. (Indigenous Americans did observe certain proprieties of modesty that are ignored here.) Some of the romance is too much - pledging eternal faith to this one and that one. The writer's whim has Brennan and Dutton end up being untrue to their characters and the resolution of one character seems to have been short a scene or two.

By the end of the season it became annoying to watch some parts - too sophomoric in the narrations and some actions being very out of place. Too bad. They should have maintained the vector of the first half of the season and resisted the teen stuff.

Boring, boring, boring and very flawed - such as killing policemen, putting Wakanda at odds with the world, and this continued "colonizer" untruth. The only point of real interest was the succession of the Panther. The rest was just messing around.

The overall feel of the movie is strained and shallow. The story is poorly told and unappealing. Much of it is stupid - such as a Wakandan ship - and a single ship going after an entire race of vastly superior aquatics. The film was based on a bad concept from start to finish. Perhaps a sequel will get things back on track. If not, considering the third Ant Man flick, Marvel's run appears to be over.

This is a second-rate sequel. It is understandable why McQueen turned it down. It was then turned into a "me-too" movie. Even his muscle car is green - a Firebird vs a Mustang GT. And his name is McQ ? And the brutal cop bit - the guy who bucks the system (the Dirty Harry series was already working on its thirs installment by this time. Plus Wayne was thirty years too old for the role. The story is total formula with lots of B. S. (Do gun shops usually shoot up barrels full of water in the basement using machine guns?)

It is rather sad to say but for some the main value of this film is that it provides a final viewing of Al Lettieri (the hyper scary Turk Sollozo of The Godfather (1972) ) , whose actual prominence as a character actor lasted only three years, from 1972 until his death in 1975 at the age of only 47, just one year after McQ was released.

This is a good flick that provides a story representing a logical next step. Frankly, the 3rd Matrix film ended in an unsatisfying way - Sati makes a rainbow sky and the Oracle hopes things will last. The story needed to go somewhere intelligent. This sequel does that.

I see lots of negative reviews. Unwarranted. This is not a wild west shoot-em-up or a teenage attitudinal extravaganza. In the 18 months since it came out I watched it three times. It is a bit more satisfying the second time around. People who called it garbage may have never seen a garbage movie. This is definitely worth watching.

Only one solitary complaint - the obviously contrived warehouse set.

This film was made during a period of tremendous social change that involved such things as civil rights, the anti-war movement, youth power, the environment, caste, and abstract thought.

The three surviving astronauts represent three aspects of humanity that would ultimately determine the balance of human advancement in some areas and decline in others. Among the astronauts, Dodge represents the academic side or wisdom, Landon represents the humanitarian or spiritual, and Taylor represents the soulless and authoritarian cynic.

The ultimate message of the film, which touched on all of the above areas and social causes, would transform Taylor (the metaphor for the dominant mindset of our society) from being the hero in this story to the anti-hero, leading the viewer. Who identifies with the Taylor character to question their own position on things. Along with other aspects, it shifts the perception of the position of Dr. Zaius, and his concessions in particular, from that of blind ignorance to being considerate and reasonable.

All things considered, including the era, the methods of the day and such, this was an amazing film and in many ways it holds up. The sequels milked it more than dry but the original was an important film in many ways.

The only thing they got right was the ornithopters. Period. The spirit of the novels (of which I have been a fan for fifty years) is nowhere to be seen.

And how could they cast stone-faced and stiff Josh Brolin in the role of a warrior minstrel and master of the lute. When he mumbles a line of poetry it is totally bizarre. And Jason Aquaguy as Duncan Idaho? Really? And how about Chiani being married to a guy as old as her grandfather?

The bar was set by the miniseries. This comes nowhere else. It is merely much more expensive.

The 1939 version of this story is far, far better. Better script, better storytelling, more interesting. There was not much of a point to this remake.

Too much visual and mental clutter. I don't plan on watching further Dr. Strange films. The convolutions and the ridiculously over-the-top CG simply wear me out.

This was a very low-budget episode - grabbing some clips from the first two seasons and trying to make a weak story out of them. This is one of the worst ever episodes of TNG and not a great way to finish a sophomore season.

The only thing about this project that worked was the buzz machine about the cattle call auditions, etc. There was not one aspect of this show or the cast that functioned. The non-actors were fish out of water with no rapport and like total strangers to each other, the writing was bad, the direction was bad, etc. I can only imagine what it was like on the set - knowing that nothing worked. And check out the audition reel. Not one of these guys had any wit or talent - truly boring people.

The problem is that, despite his negatives, there was no Don Kirshner behind this show - no one to make the right decisions about anything. Kirshner knew how to prefab a fake band, how to find and cast funny people, how to groom them, and how to find truly excellent songs.

The New Monkees was horrible. Hair band made up of nothing but hair.

This film is okay but not great. With such a star as Nelson Eddy, costumes by Vera, and an impressively elaborate and expensive production with a huge supporting cast and a massive opera house set, it nevertheless fails. This is because it almost ccompletely ignores its target audience - horror fans, not opera fans. They could have saved a massive amount of money by cutting the opera performance scenes by eighty percent. This would also have saved a large percentage of the audience from repeated bouts of lushly orchestrated boredom; one can easily spot the places in the film when men in the audience are begging the women to allow them to sneak out of the theatre. This is an example of the eternal downside of a steady percentage of Hollywood films to this day, which is that of ignoring the audience and talking backers into ignoring their own common sense. Frankly, this is a noble effort, but without much of a clue.

The mentality of the writer and producers is that of an eight-year old in a man's body. The turrets "eat" reference is enough to drive away much of the audience on its own. Really stupid script. The mandatory introduction of the misfit heroes (their very inclusion in the film) was so tired - Dirty Dozen / Kelly's Heroes / Magnificent Seven - totally done to death, ut a turrets guy and a filthy jokes guy? Really?

Hopefully this film with drive the writer and producers out of the film industry. We certainly do not need any more like them.

From this episode forward many fans felt that the Frasier character had been greatly degraded. While the quality of writing for the character remained good, the story line of the failed marriage was a big disappointment for a great many viewers.

When the Frasier series appeared the following year fans received the character well because it provided a level of happiness that was stripped away by the Lilith situation. In the eyes of this particular viewer, the failed marriage story line made for a terrible attempt at jumping the shark. It did not add interest, it just created sadness.

It took a lot of effort for me to endure this movie. Clearly a flop. It lacked the spirit of the Disney live action film. Hard to put a finger on it but taken as a whole, not at all appealing.

Americans can be annoying. Hey, look a real Egyptologist from TV. Here's some old stuff. I'll get drunk. A dream sequence would be cool. Hmm. What do we do next?

This is a figure it out as you go film. Not a proper script. Just stuff happening. The only two things that really drew my attention were the inclusion of Dr. Ikram and the idea that a character would be able to visit the tomb of Thutmosis III on her own and not in a throng of tourists.

Fout films dominate this genre for the eighties through early nineties: Dressed to Kill (1980), Fatal Attraction (1989), Sea of Love (1988), and Basic Instinct (1992). In terms of thrills, Sea of Love is second only to Fatal Attraction (a film so totally terrifying to men in particular that few will ever watch it a second time). In fact, if you want to watch Sea of Love, watch Fatal Attraction first. It will definitely heighten the effect.

Everything in Sea of Love is done right. It put Ellen Barkin and John Goodman on the map big time. Great story, script, acting, direction, everything.

This is a good, solid scifi film. Well written, acted, directed, designed and edited. Way more believable than the very hokey original and far superior in all five of the ways mentioned above. This is the way it should have been done in the first place.

For those who are loyal to the original, they obviously never read the book. There is nothing about mutants. It involves a planned invasion of earth by rodent-like aliens.

Both films took the seed of a great idea and fleshed it out in wildly different ways. The latter film kept things down to earth, as it were. No colony on Mars, no mutants. Clearly, they took a page from Blade Runner in keeping it like an action film-noir - dark, gritty, characters that were totally serious and not sideshow freaks. If a modern-day Hitchcock were to make a scifi action flick, this would be it.

Read the other reviews for other views. Having made my way here and there, including five years in Tanzania and Kenya, including 20 miles from the nearest dirt track, I tend to agree with the views of the native campers and hikers in Alaska - No map, no compass, no skills, no knowledge, no common sense, no chance. The guy was a half mile from a safe crossing and didn't have a clue. Inevitable ending.

A low-paying gig for known actors in need of work and for kids who want a shot at it. It is heavy-handed and unnatural - a 90-minute sequence of vignettes that is intended to have an impact but which has no flow or rhythm. It is all very mechanical and dispirited.

I got this video on the flip side of a Sam Elliot double feature DVD in a bargain bit filled with forgettable TV movies. Not worth the time spent to watch.

Feel free to refer to other reviews as to the quality of the filmmaking. The story is very good, even though it will definitely not appeal to action fans. One reason why it is good is that it is just as simple and parched as the life of the protagonist. The slow pace of things is there for a reason. It puts the viewer into the story almost as a participant. (A certain thing happens; what is the wisest course to take?) It is not just a story of overcoming challenges but of patience, waiting for the chess pieces to move, and then taking action. This type of story cannot be told in the traditional way. It must be lived, not chaperoned by a plethora of subplots and galloping action.)

I see this as an excellent companion to Lawrence of Arabia. It fills some cultural holes in David Lean's epic. And one of those holes is seen in the brief confrontation between the British Major and the Arab regarding the concept of nationhood. Concerns about bread, water, goats and matauders is what matters to this group of people, not nationhood. And this film does an excellent example of portrayng this very thing.