Reviews

Bottom line, I liked this series. As an "avid astronomer" myself, it was really something out of the ordinary to see a sit-com done with Siding Springs and massive telescopes as the backdrop. The humor is good too. I thought the scope of the first season wasn't too much, neither too little. So I liked it.

That said, I know it's low budget, but could you at least get a first year astronomy student a six pack of beer and have them spend 15 minutes with each episode??? The technical stuff is cringeworthy. And I mean at the level a 12 year old kid with a backyard 'scope would catch. We also don't need KBOs being called planets after all the stupidity around Pluto's status. It's too bad that some git that doesn't know a CCD from a hole in the ground from...well, it's too bad that some git had to claim they could be a technical editor, because, whoever you are, you obviously couldn't test out of primary school physics.

I'm serious. Get your 12 year old nephew aside that has a telescope and ask if you can observer with the lights on indoors. Could even the most far-fetched science fiction writer explain how one can tell that you're dealing with a NEO simply by looking at it through an eyepiece. Whilst Sirius, the brightest star in the sky is in the field of view. That's really absurd. A telescope that size looking at Sirius? You'd either have to use a filter or you'd be blinded for 10 minutes. Either way you wouldn't be able to see a faint asteroid.

IF any of SS's telescopes still even have a primary focus; most all have been replaced with CCDs and are used remotely from a computer screen. The only thing that seemed to have consultation was the blink comparator at the end...and it was simply grafted on in a way that made no sense given what they've said before that point. Add to that they don't seem to know the difference between the universe and solar system... It's too bad. Contact me guys. I'll edit for free. It could be a really nice series if they could just take the SUBJECT MATTER seriously. Seriously, the science in this series is about as much real astronomy as the Simpson's treatment of Homer at his job is real nuclear physics.

I have to say I think this one is generally over-rated. I didn't mind watching it, but had read how it was really terrifying, etc. It was very straight-ahead in a way typical of the genre. It was very interesting to see a young Franco Nero starting out with Westerns. It's a very serious portrayal, with none of the humor that we know him for later. It doesn't fail, but it doesn't inspire either. Not bad for 1966, but compared to the stuff that came a bit later, it's B league in my book. Still, I would recommend it to aficionados of spaghetti westerns, simply for the sake of completeness.

IMDb, what is wrong with that review? Ever heard brevity is the essence of wit? That doesn't need to be 1/3 longer. Was that policy even thought through or did some programmer just decide to do it that way? There. You've got your 12 lines now.

I don't mind slow movies if the pace develops plot and character. What I dislike is when it's obvious that a director has time to fill and just does...whatever...for a few minutes. This film is full of that. Started timing it and anything they show they linger on for about 4 times longer than seems typical. This could *easily* be edited- and be much more interesting- as a 45 minutes short. But it's two freakin' hours. Fine, if that's your cup of tea, then do a one act play with unity of time, place and action. But this is no such thing. Bottom line, it just wastes time.

There are no interesting twists to the plot. No standout acting. It's like following a New Orleans homicide detective around for two hours. If it were not for Clint and the city itself, none of us would ever have heard of it. I guess I would recommend it if you had five people over for Creole cooking and wanted something to go with the meal, knowing that everyone was going to talk constantly and sit around for two hours after dinner. It would actually be pretty good for that because you'd never miss anything. Other than that, I'm at a loss to find a way to recommend it.

Under-rated!!! OK, if you don't like spaghetti/schnitzel westerns, but if one has ever even mildly entertained you then you'll love this.

Great acting, wonderful casting, incredible humor- and the best part is that it isn't trying to be funny, it just can't help it! Never silly, with so many sequences that are just...fun! I have been thinking since watching films like "One Man's Hero" that 1910 along the Texas-Mexico border is the best time and place for the genre and this one really proves the rule.

More gritty than "Fistful of Dollars", better cast than "Once Upon a Time in the West" and it leaves you feeling better than "Shane". Yeah, it's that good, imho.

Dig one of the original posters for it: http://www.allouttabubblegum.com/main/wp- content/uploads/2011/06/companeros_poster_01.jpg

I use these ratings all the time and have found them to be pretty much spot-on how I end up regarding different films...but THIS...I'm not wondering about the movie as so many have commented, I'm wondering about the other reviews. THAT'S what just doesn't add up.

You know how Quentin Tarantino creates all those scenes that gen X think are awesome, but are just physics challenged? You know the world doesn't work like that, and there's no plot reason to violate the laws of physics, but Quentin thought it would be neat and his sheep think so too? This is the social relationship version of that kind of...being reality challenged.

The temporal order in which events are presented is absolute nonsense. He doesn't remember things that way, so why would you present it that way just to...look cool? Is that what it's supposed to be? I'm a neurologist and can tell you that the portrayal of his condition is also quite reality challenged. Where are the police? It's the kind of totally self indulgent gen X rubbish where "nothing exists outside my head" and "I dream that I am a..., so I am" that drives Boomers insane. THAT'S the real plot reason, I think, for his condition. It allows for the a priori decision to do this from a POV view that is, well quite frankly, produced by managing to insert one's head far up one's rectum.

The jokes aren't even funny. This movie scares me. It scares me that there is a whole population of people that can identify with what the screen writer and director were trying to do. A lot of the glowing reviews are the only one written by the author, so there could be a good deal of "paid buzz" generation going on here as well. Bottom line, if you actually liked Kill Bill or Blair Witch, you will probably find this awesome. If Pulp Fiction made you want to go out and take a cattle prod to the first gen X you could grab, then you'll hate this.

Very sad that I will no longer be able to trust IMDb ratings any more, but when complete and utter rubbish gets an 8.5... Sigh. And relax the spell check restrictions. "T-o-s-h" is a perfectly good English word and it is spelled correctly.

Looks interesting, and I can kind of follow it, but I have an old saved- from-VHS-to-DVD edition that has no subtitles file! Thankfully, it's not dubbed either, but I can't understand all the Italian, especially when they're arguing. I'll accept any language that Google Translate can handle to English. They're usually in a file with the extension "srt". (If they're not burned into the video track). Please message this account if you have one!

Minimum length? So much for brevity being the essence... . One, two, three. One, two, three. Five, seven. Is that long enough? No? Do some metrics. Where'd you come up with the magic number 10? Blank check information technology...