Reviews

Before you attempt to negate my opinion, let me clarify: no I'm not a Brit and no I don't care about the Royals or the "press" that turned them into tabloid fodder celebrities.

I just question the lack of humanity of this project. So ok you fire cheap shots at non fictional kids just because of the family they were born into, what is this accomplishing exactly?

Only two things can come out of something like this:

• traumatizing some poor kid who never asked to be born
• keeping the notion that the Royals and their lives should matter to anyone

In any case, it's nothing but a hypocritical take from a rather lame "comedy" writer stepping on someone else's celebrity to try and make himself bigger.

Even if it was funny, which it definitely is not, that would not make the whole project more valid.

First, let's not kid ourselves, Danielle Deadwyler carries the movie. If the depth of this cloying wordy script was left to the Hodges brothers, it would be a puddle.

The budget is not a problem so much as the acting of 2/3 of the cast but then they wrote themselves a movie so they weren't going to cast capable actors. They probably shouldn't have cast Deadwyler though because she acts circles around them.

Unfortunately that's really not enough to save it. The over the top melodrama was already enough to bury the concept but they had so little confidence in the audience that they have to describe everything, every moral choice, every option and it gets terribly boring.

If you liked this, check out Coherence. It will blow your mind.

The first three episodes are not too bad if you are just looking to unplug your brain.

Episode 4 is starting to feel a little overstretched with unnecessary B plots and the bucket of paper thin characters recently dropped on the main story to turn the plot into an 8 episode show.

By Episode 5, you won't be looking to unplug your brain, you'll need to be brain dead to enjoy yourself.

The plot turns ludicrous; predictable twists abound and the show keeps borrowing here and there from other things in a way that seems less and less organic.

Episode 6 is when the show just goes off the rails entirely... and there's 2 more episodes to go. Whew

Overall, it's yet another example of what could have been a half decent thriller movie turned into a mediocre watered down 8 episodes show.

Never been much of a fan of Sheridan's writing. His villains are too broad and predictable. His heroes are too honorable and predictable.

I gave this one a shot for Helen Mirren.

It was mildly watchable, with more than the occasional eye roll at the ridiculousness of dialogues and villainous villainy of the baddies.

But this episode is just way under any standard I have set for myself as a viewer.

Between the Princess and the Hunter paperback novel we have to suffer for half the show, and the over the top mustache twirling of the Villain in Chief (now with obligatory literal sadism to boot), not to mention the making a mockery of the pain many Native American children suffered at the hand of the government, by piling up ridiculous violent scenes like some tragic Jenga, I just can't keep watching and I'll be skipping the rest of the show entirely.

A mess.

The plot and the villains were clearly half-baked, or at least they ended up presented that way, due to the butchering of the overall plot.

Whether it's due to the pandemic making it hard to complete the 10 episodes as planned, or to a much rumored (and believable) pandemic/vaccine tempering storyline that had to be completely edited out and left the show almost completely empty of meaning, it's hard to say.

Or maybe the show tested so badly, they decided to make the identity of the Power Broker a big reveal instead of what it should have been (and was, according to interviews with some of the cast). An explanation for the motivations of the Flag Smashers.

What I know for sure though, it's that neither Bucky Barnes not Sam Wilson have enough charisma or oomph to carry a show or a movie. They are incredibly boring and most of the "acting" consists of blank stares that are supposed to pass for... intensity? Rage? Emotion? I can't really tell.

Anyway, it's not worth the watch as it is.

It's an action thriller so I wasn't exactly expecting it to re-invent the wheel. I just wanted a decent popcorn flick with interesting characters and some action on the side.

I was actually pleasantly surprised. While not reinventing the genre, the movie definitely reinvigorates it. The characters development and the dynamic between the two women is very well written and the acting is exceptional for a movie of the genre.

Just when I thought I couldn't be surprised by the depth of Janney's acting, she knocks another one out of the park in a role I never would have expected her in.

Oh and for the ones who are having such a hard time "suspending disbelief" when they see "a senior citizen" kick two young guys into next week, ask yourself why you had no such issue while watching Keanu Reeves, a mere 3 years "younger" take a whole room full of armed younger guys in John Wick...

We can talk about what makes a good Predator movie until we turn blue but when it comes to this movie, it boils down to a simple thing:

• if you want to watch a fun popcorn movie and want to have a good 2 hours of excitement: watch it.

• If you are triggered by the mere presence of a woman in a movie and you think the worst thing that ever happened to humanity is the 21st century, just pop in a grandpa VHS in the old player and watch something else. Preferably from the 1960ies.

And when I see all the snowflakes whining about how a movie about an alien predator hunting people is "unrealistic", I don't know whether to laugh or cry but then honestly, it's better to laugh at these people because they are too sad not to.

I really wanted to like it but after a few episodes, I realized it was not going to happen.

Everything about it is wrong. The tone, the dialog, the baseball (Gods, the baseball!), the characters, the "humor".

I applaud the show for reinserting queer characters in the story and if you think that's "woke" or "unnecessary", think again because if you honestly believe that they had all these women playing baseball in the 40ies and that there was not a lesbian in sight, you are living in an alternate reality.

Lesbians did exist in the 1940ies and your odds of running into them quadrupled if you were setting foot on a baseball diamond.

I also think it was an interesting idea to look at black female players who were kept out of the league. Unfortunately that story really doesn't lead anywhere and is just not realistic enough to be interesting.

And that's why I am so disappointed by the show. They had a chance to fix the glaring omissions of the movie, to retell the story with a more realistic, less glamorized perspective.

Instead we get poorly written third tier paperback romance, some of the lousiest acting I have seen from a lead ever (I guess bad actors should all write themselves a show), underdeveloped characters that function as placeholders for archetypes, and 21st century dialog that is so bad, it had to be improvised. I can't believe even a bad writer could be *that* off tone.

Not only is this a missed opportunity, it's an insult to the ladies who played in the league, to the black women who didn't even get their shot, and to the queer women who have and will remain invisible in this part of our shared history.

Well there you have. They don't even scratch the surface of their premise and you get two completely miscast actors going through the motions of a lackluster script.

Teller is not too bad in what little he has as a character even though he just never seems right for the part. Hemsworth looks like he always does... a little bit lost and unsure how he ended up here, like he is looking for the gym or the SNL set. Putting glasses on him doesn't make him credible as a scientist. Nope.

Total waste of Jurnee Smollet too, which is one of the many crimes of the movie.

But then again after the Netflix logo, my expectations were low...

If there has ever been a show that made it clearer that there wasn't a showrunner at the helm, it's definitely Star Trek Picard season 2.

The season started well with two good episodes and it went downhill from there.

Between the storyline that seems like a watered down vague version of First Contact, the plot fillers like Rios little doctor girlfriend story, the utter lack of character development (with the exception of Jurati due to circumstances)... it's an endless slope.

It's obvious that this season's budget and production was cut down by Covid. They made an entire season in 2024 so they wouldn't have to spend any money.

It really wouldn't be too bad if they hadn't also cut the money in the writers room. When you look at the writers this season, it's a long line of inexperienced script editors and writers assistant with no scifi in their filmography....

The episode felt like it was written by an intern... because it was.

... how many people here seem to be thinking they were watching a serious show!

If you can get past the intro with the protagonist/narrator talking in a British accent while remarking that her husband complained about her speaking with a British accent even though she is not British... and fail to realize this is a parody, you need to stop watching tv right now and maybe hit some books with pictures or listen to music because tv is just too hard for you

As for the show, it just is too heavy handed and at the same time too much like what it means to parody to be really funny. They obviously watched A Touch of Cloth and thought they'd do something like that but it fails way too short. There's so much schmaltz and honestly bad scenes mingled with lines that are meant to be funny but fall completely flat, that it's a struggle to know what they were going for.

Some really bad acting also gets distracting after a while. Bell manages well with both the outrageous and dead-panned but Tom Riley is just so bad, it's hard to watch him stutter through his scenes.

But seriously, if you get to episode 2 and listen to Anna talk about how her daughter died and somehow you think this is "totally unrealistic" (kudos, you're on the right track!), you should pay attention instead of tweeting while you watch tv. But then don't go reviewing shows on imdb.

... and then there are movies like this one where even a triple dose of suspension of disbelief won't change the fact it's garbage.

Ludicrous premise. Terrible execution. One nonsensical scene after the other. Cliché one-dimensional characters. Hallmark canned feels scenes.

The movie is so bad, it's frankly exhausting.

95% of the negative reviews here that seem to come from the American Association for Family Values.

"A woman who likes sex? Shame on her!" "The show is promoting whoring around and destroying marriages!" "They should kill the wife and just give me the pretty hubby in a spinoff" and other ridiculous and dishonest point of views.

The truth is the show is just not good. Not because the protagonist likes sex. Not because of the acting, which is pretty good, well at least on Shahi's part as the two guys are snoozing through the whole thing. And not because the unfaithful wife doesn't die from AIDS at the end of the show.

No. It's just bad because the writing is mediocre.

The characters don't seem to be consistent. They just go where the script needs them to without consideration for motivation, psychology or human behavior.

They remain throughout underdeveloped archetypes self sacrificing for twists.

Not that I could have expected better from the showrunner, who murdered UnReal in the last season. She just didn't seem to care about the characters, and in a show that should have been about human frailty, it's a downfall that no amount of good acting can save a show from.

I don't know what's worse about this "movie"

• the appallingly amateurish directing
• the high school level writing
• the Youtube parody acting

or the number of alt-right reviewers falling over themselves in the reviews trying to make this pass for a masterpiece.

Look, pro-choice or pro-life, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when you try to pretend that a movie" which makes SNL parodies look like Scorcese movies, with nutjob conspiracy that makes Charlie Sheen sound sane and reasonable, is the best thing ever, you just embarrass yourself.

I have seen more convincing pro-life arguments from FOX News, and that's saying a lot.

Despite the raving one sentence reviews of the Whedon fans here who blame the show's tepid reception by critics on the Whedongate, the sad truth is the show has enormous potential that remains unfulfilled at the mid-season mark.

There's not much that is very original to start with. Whedon's work has always been a bit borrowed here, a bit borrowed there; mostly from comic books (which usually prompts the ones less versed in comics than Whedon to claim he's a genius). This takes a page out of the Penny Dreadful (not the show, the actual penny dreadful), a little Lady Mechanika. A dash of Misfits and a plethora of Batman villains, nefarious characters who indulge in lengthy drowning monologues saying very little and are bent on taking the heroes down because they can or just because they're criminal "masterminds" and that's what they do.

Despite the feeling of dejà vu, there's a lot to like in the middle of it all. The lead characters are charismatic and intriguing; their dynamic fresh and interesting, and some mysterious element to Mrs True's past that deserves more than a couple of lines here and there.

There is also an undercurrent of revolt against the Powers That Be, a whiff of the underdog in the long standing fight between Society's Norm and those in the margins, the misfits, the left over.

However none of this is very well developed (or even really at all), and themes of rebellion, feminism and otherness, as well as the delightful relationship between Penance and Amalia, are quickly pushed aside to make room for villains galore (most of whom are predictable, boring and unnecessary) and minor plot points that turn into major ones with no end in sight.

Particularly ironic is the discourse on the disregard women are held in by the Victorian Society, and the juxtaposition of boobs, gratuitous (obviously straight) sex between one particular annoying villain and a plethora of unnamed extras who are just there to fill the quota of HBO's trademark T&A.

Is it worth watching? Sure, why not? It's not like there's much on tv these days. And the delicious moments, albeit few and far between, do crackle with excitement.

Is it the unique masterpiece the Whedon fans are raving about? No, and it's a damn shame because in the right hands, it could be.

Just another attempt at generating revenue and hype from a well known franchise without trying hard. And wow, did they really not try hard for that one. The acting of the lead is so bad, she makes poor Julianne Moore's Clarice look awesome. The writing seems computer generated. That's the only way I can explain how utterly formulaic and cliché everything is. The worst part really was to make Clarice a victim through and through. She's just there to be bullied by everyone around her and to shake and cower. What a shame. I really envy people who have lowered their standards enough that they can find this mess entertaining, or even watchable because there's really nothing they won't like on tv.

That's how the movie/tv industry works now: Step 1. Buy rights to a franchise, and do a sequel/prequel/remake/reboot/spin-off/retoolingjust wait for people to talk about it on social media. Step 2. Let people know (just send a few press releases, no cost) Step 3. Wait for people to talk about it on social media (doesn't even matter if it's just to say "wth are they thinking???" Step 4. Add the social media stats to your advertising portfolio. Step 5. Sell commercial space for the show and watch the money rolling in.

Oh yeah and then you need to make the show/movie but no effort required there. Just cast someone pretty (talent is not required). Grab a shameless writer who just wants a big paycheck or a little attention. And voila. Show gets canceled less than a season in? Whatever. Money made.

When a movie gets a large number of "1" with reviews from people who have obviously never seen the movie and provide no detail about why they hated the movie that much, well it makes me want to check it out even more. So I did. And you should too. Just to see which category you fall into: a) movie viewers who want to be entertained b) self righteous imbeciles who just can't stand a movie with no good guys c) pathetic incels whose already microscopic penises shrink at the idea that a female character could be presented as powerful

Goes without saying that if you fall into the b) and/or c) category, you should go rewatch Saving Private Ryan (category b) or Breaking Bad again (category c)

If you just like movies and you can enjoy a story without feeling the overwhelming need to identify with the protagonist or to judge characters, you'll probably enjoy this one.

While I was looking forward to the movie when I heard of it being made, the subsequent reviews after it opened had me worried. After I decided to judge it for myself, I was surprised that the critics seemed to be so unanimously bent against the movie. Personally I found the story to be beautiful, well told and well acted, and supported by stunning cinematography and a sensitive direction. I guess it all comes down to personal sensibilities, imagination and perhaps expectations.

I see a lot of reviews that command you DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE and I say make up your own mind. Try it. See how you like it. Maybe you'll find yourself bored by dialogue if you like more action. Maybe you'll find the darkness of certain topics to be too much to bear for your overwrought heart. Maybe you'll wish it was a movie made for children so you can watch something with your kids.

Or maybe, just maybe, you haven't forgotten how to dream and you'll find it enchanting, moving and poignant and you will enjoy the time you spent chasing after shadows on the edge of Wonderland.

After reading some of the reviews here, I felt the show needed a somewhat balanced review. To be honest, I passed on the show when it aired. I had seen the promo pictures and, well, Freeform is the other CW so I figured it was going to be another teenage girl power show with no substance, lots of love triangle and boring teenage concerns like does he really like me and do I fit in?? But then a number of people I know who like smart shows told me I should give this a watch so I reluctantly watched the trailer and I was intrigued enough to give it a 2 episode test.... which turned into a 10 episodes binge. It's the exact opposite of what I thought it would be. Very well written, with humor, and depth, characterization and plot driven characters with layers, really good acting from a largely unknown cast, and a plot that brings you along a great ride without pulling the brakes. If I could change anything, I'd probably only make the season longer.

Now, there are a number of extremely negative reviews on the site, so it's natural to be cautious of the 10* reviews. However, if you look at the 1* reviews, you'll see they have zero argument for the harshness of the rating; most of them use words like "PC", "SJW", "political", "agenda", "feminist", or even "feminazis" and some ven try to convince you that ratings were bad so this must be terrible. Ratings were low because most people who would be interested in a smart fantasy show assumed like me that Freeform was in the business of entertaining teens and not in the business of making good shows for all ages. And if you check the profiles of the people with the 1* reviews (most of whom have clearly not seen anything but the posters or trailers), I dare you to find one who hasn't blasted other movies/shows with female leads, aren't making it political... and don't have a white old dude as a picture or a name.

Enough said? Try it and make up your own mind.

So I have to guess the people raving about the movie in the review section worked on the movie or are either fans of Laugier or Mylène Farmer (who turns in a ridiculously over the top and pointlessly long performance here, you wouldn't guess she's a friend of the director, would you?) or worse, that they are among those creeps who just enjoy seeing young women tortured and maimed.

As for myself, I am neither and as I didn't even really like Martyrs, I probably should have stayed away from this one. In the end, it's pretty much the same as the first part of Martyrs: a lot of graphic torture of helpless women. In Martyrs, it has a pretense to set up the revenge part. In Ghostland, Laugier does away with the pretense and just delights into the torture. Ugh.

Only watch if this is your thing I guess or maybe just go seek help instead.

It fails on so many levels, even on the action front. The "script" is so unoriginal, you'll spend most of the movie counting the scripts and movies it "borrowed" from just to keep yourself awake. And as if their ripping off Memento (very basically) wasn't obvious enough, they even cast Guy Pearce to ham it up. Honestly the few moments I was awake and watching was when Eiza González was lighting up the screen and that's the only reason it gets a 5 instead of a 2

So many "reviews" (most of them from people who only read about the show or saw a trailer considering the lack of detail) seem to be written by people from the 1950s so, considering this is a 21st century show, they'll undoubtedly be bad reviews. Imagine that: a strong female character, not defined by her husband or how many kids she has, in a leadership position most often kept by men, who is not into men (gasp! the horror! not even for sex??) and who was previously in an interracial marriage. This is a 1950s American nightmare.

For the rest of us who are living in the current century, it's an interesting watch with a great leading actress, about current issues we are facing as a society, and writing that sometimes misses its mark due to being overeager or maybe trying to simplify too much for people who watch network tv.

When they explore Dex's past a little and get some story going, it's good. Unfortunately too much of the Boring Bartender now playing Undercover Cop makes for a dull dull filler.

Get the dude his own show. When they are at the point where some lamba supporting character with a crush gets more screentime, totally unrelated to the protagonist, in some 70ies cop show parody, you know it's time for him to go.

After a huge slump of several episodes with mediocre writing, the show seems finally back to form with an episode focusing on Dex and her past, a solid investigation and good dynamics between characters that don't have to do with love triangles. Well, not exactly anyway.

The various guests were pretty good too but you have to wonder about the casting of a Eurasian actress to play the member of the Tribe. Her performance was pretty good but she really didn't look the part and at this point, I'm pretty sure it's not that hard to find actresses who fit the ethnicity they play, especially in the US.

The show is quite frankly a mess, writing wise. The first episode, written by the creator of the comic book, did well and struck a good balance between humor, action and drama. They haven't been doing so well since then, and admittedly the shameless sweeps bait is not faring much better.

It's like the show doesn't know what it wants to be and who it wants to be for, as it usually the case for network shows lately, as they desperately want to reach younger audiences than the usual senior homes and leave it to beaver families watching their shows, but remain completely unable to accept that they will have to sacrifice the baby boomers if they want to get anyone born after 1980 interested.

It doesn't help that ABC seems to believe (thank you Grey's Anatomy?) that female led shows can only be interesting to female viewers if there are love interests, love triangles, boy trouble and all the usual BS that comes with "shows for women" from the early 2000s and before.

So was this a good episode? No. Why? Because it wasn't sexy enough? or because the guest lesbian wasn't hot enough? or because "homosexuality ruins everything" (LOL)? Nope. Because the writing was bad and the character in the comics is bisexual through and through. Not just when it's about getting old pervs to watch the show during sweeps.

And by the way, Cobie Smulders is a producer on the show. IF she didn't want to do a gay scene, she wouldn't have picked a comic book whose character is bisexual. Then network happened.