Reviews

What's crazy - is this is clearly a Hollywood pet project, as it was littered with big names for the time doing cameos - and yet for key roles, they picked some of the worst.

Fred Ward and Brion James were always C actors on their best day. Lyle Lovett is horrible. Cynthia Stevenson was a very odd choice.

So somehow, this movie switches from 'legitimate movie' to 'bad 80s movie' (made in '92) all throughout, based upon who's on the screen.

Whoopi shows up and makes it feel like a good movie again, right as it's going off the rails. Making the rest finish-able.

Decent for a one time watch, but I'd never watch it again.

It's the better of the 'good for a one time watch' - so I'm giving it a 6.

Probably Gosling's worst film. He is beyond boring, as there is NO creative writing present in this flick.

The only person who does any real acting in the film is Oscar Isaac.

The director definitely has talent. But that's all this thing has going for it. And the slow burn scenes between Gosling and Mulligan staring dumbly are so over used, that it just drags the whole thing to a crawl - attempting to add depth where some decent writing should have been.

It's almost as if the director took a bet that he could make a watchable movie out of a script written by a middle schooler.

This thing having a 7.8 on IMDb is a blight to its reputation for rankings.

The only good thing that came out of this are the internet memes.

Everything is right there for this thing to be a 10.

The directing. The acting. The cinematography. The story. The writing.

Why isn't it a 10?

They had to shoe horn in a wife, and just like all of the others - every scene with her is tedious, serves no real purpose, and just slows the whole thing to a crawl.

Some scenes the music is masterfully done, but then there's a couple of parts where the choice was too out there, and it yanks you out of the moment.

I didn't like the choice of Danny Huston to play Arthur Burns. He wasn't bad or anything, I just think there's choices who would have been better. He's never been that guy who plays that role. He doesn't look the part at all.

Every so many years I'll give this another shot, because it's Tom Selleck - and him as a cowboy is a cool idea.

But each time I find it tedious to get through.

Laura San Giacomo's 'Crazy Cora' is as annoying as Jar Jar Binks.

Movie makes Alan Rickman one dimensional, so he doesn't even get to shine.

The whole story comes off as a 'Save the Aborigines' donation drive.

Make no mistake about it, the 5 stars are entirely Selleck; so don't bother putting it on if you're not a fan.

This movie drops to zero stars without him.

I have no clue who these people are giving it high reviews.

Even in a day and age where modern crap makes the most mediocre of older films seem phenomenal - this thing still falls flat.

It's fiction. Lol Not a documentary.

There has NEVER been a fictional period production made that no one complained about historical inaccuracies - and yet, they're all still here complaining; as if a production that 'got history right' exists.

I imagine they howl at full moons. I digress.

Don't be deceived, this isn't just a show about Henry VIII's romances.

There's political backstabbing right up there with the first 3 seasons of Game of Thrones An interesting glimpse into the formation of the Church of England.

Excellent production value.

If it had focused more on the events of the time than the romances, I might have given it higher than an 8. But where it stands, solid 8.

And they made it well enough that I guarantee anyone who enjoyed it looked up all of the subject matter as far as authentic history goes; so the real history still gets told.

First off, as far as world building goes - this thing is a 12 out of 10.

The premise is fantastic.

I can only imagine what they could have done with 10 seasons.

But it does have issues.

It feels 2nd rate at times.

Some shots/scenes feel as if it's a late 80s/early 90s show.

I think every character on the show was miscast.

(This is evident in the fact NONE of them became anything.)

EVERYTHING great about this show is a tribute to the creators, not the people they picked to act it out.

(They weren't horrible, don't get me wrong. But none of them were amazing as their role.)

But it's undeniably fun sci fi.

The reavers by far the best part, and should have been used more.

I would check it out if you like such.

Entertaining from start to finish.

Knows what it wants to be and nails it.

'Silly comedy making fun of the west'.

Humor is very vulgar, word to the wise.

Charize Theron is WAY too old for her part. Lol At some point she even says, 'we've been married since I was 8', or something to that effect.

I can't believe they missed the opportunity for him to respond, "so you've been married to Clint for 35 years?" A lot of clever writing, and I'm a sucker for such.

The jokes centered around the Christian couple verged dangerously close to being over done.

You never want to tell multiple versions of the same joke.

Another movie dropped 2 stars because millionaire actors can't or won't learn an accent.

It is impossible to suspend disbelief watching this, because it's a bunch of obvious Americans dressed like 50s Russians.

And what's worse, every now and then - there is a genuine actor speaking with a Russian accent. Lol So it REALLY makes all of the rest stick out, especially the lead, Steve Buscemi.

All of them having horrible cliche Russian accents would have been better than what they went with.

My only other real complaint - is the horrible miscast of Jeffrey Tambor. He sticks out like a sore thumb.

I give 5s and 6s for 'good for a one time watch'.

This is the lower end of those - so it's a natural 5.

It was on sale for 4.99 on Prime, and IMDB had it at 7.3, so I figured 'why not?'

Honestly, I would have preferred to keep my 4.99.

MAJOR IMDb fail.

It is watchable, but barely.

It's been a while since I watched this, but I remember not understanding the hype back then - and I can't believe it still has such a high score.

The first season was good, the 2nd season is absolute trash, and the 3rd season is great.

Maybe I never watched the 4th and 5th.

I can't remember thinking anything about them.

By the time this came out, there had been a thousand shows glamorizing black gangsterism - and a million cop shows.

It was just those 2 things combined.

Done really well (at least for 1 and 3); but nonetheless, nothing new.

To be ranked as one of the best of all time, I will never understand.

It's hard to grade movies, anymore.

In the 90s, upon its release - this probably would have been a solid 7.

But compared to contemporaneity cinema (2024) - this is a 10. Lol First off, if you're not a Fishburne fan, don't waste your time.

He always rolls dangerously close to 'hammy' with his acting style.

It holds nothing back when it comes to the ruthlessness of the 30s gangster era (for the weak stomachs); and has lots of racial slurs (for the thin skinned) - so you might want to avoid for those reasons.

Tim Roth plays a great Dutch Schultz.

Andy Garcia plays Andy Garcia. (Dude is literally the same guy in everything.)

There's simply no charisma in this thing.

And it comes down to Henry Cavil.

He's one of those actors that is great for side characters, but a show can't be entertaining with him as the lead.

He was great in The Tudors, for instance.

In many ways, Mickey Rourke is in the same boat.

Rourke 'Iron Man 2' lame; Rourke 'Sin City' - great.

He's not the only issue; considering how fun of a subject Greek Mythology is - this thing just isn't engaging at all.

(And I've attempted to watch it a couple of times, trying to force myself to like it.)

4 is the best I can give for movies I wouldn't recommend for even a one time viewing, and this is definitely the high end of that.

You can tell a lot of money went into it.

This is somehow less entertaining than Alexander, which I wouldn't think possible.

There's simply not enough epics to choose from for them to be making bad ones. No one who likes epic movies would ever wish for one to fail. The makers have to go out of their way for that to happen.

Really bad casting.

This easily could have been a movie that made a lot of money - being how cheap and easy one could film the 3 stories in one swoop; getting a full length picture for what amounts to a 3rd of a movie's worth of work.

The problem?

They cast 3 known Americans, who despite making millions for their roles - couldn't be bothered to learn French accents.

You would swear this was a movie made about middle age England.

I actually prefer that they used English, as subtitles make for a less enjoyable experience.

But they couldn't learn the accent?

If Ridley would have just got 3 French actors - he could have saved millions on one end - and made millions more on the other end.

From sets, to costumes, to shots - everything else about this movie is top notch.

Even if going with Americans - why hire the 'just a face' bunch?

None of them are renown method actors.

Ben and Matt are the same guys in every film (who would EVER put these 2 in a period piece?) - and the only good thing Adam Driver ever made was the oil tycoon on SNL.

It's like he wanted this project to fail.

Who is going to be drawn to a King Arthur movie? Males.

Who likes romance stories? Females.

Who is going to go to a King Arthur movie that just tells the story of the Lancelot love triangle aspect?

NO ONE. Lol

This movie never stood a chance of being liked.

While Gere will forever be a sex symbol - he comes off as 'full of himself' leaning so hard into it, that it's more cringe than anything.

The actress playing Guinevere is probably the most solid of the film, as Connery is wasted.

There's nothing written in the script to show you why Arthur is awesome - you're just supposed to take the movie's word for it.

And what nailed the coffin shut - the villain is an 80s archetype in a '95 film.

Still, worth a one time watch if you're stuck in a hotel room and nothing else is on. But you'll never watch it again. I promise.

Solid 5.

Probably the only show to really compete with Sopranos for best of the genre.

Some things it did better.

Some things it did worse.

The things it did better:

• Kept the story focused around the 'gangsterness' that people tuned in for; even when incorporating family drama. Sopranos not only had more family drama, but 90% of the family drama didn't have anything to do with the mafia premise; downright boring at times.

• In shows such as these, you have to have your per episode arcs, as well as your season long arcs. SOA had better in depth and entertaining arcs; both episode and season wise.

• Better final episode.

The things it did worse:

• While an achievement to be as entertaining as it was, when it was a 'PG-13 biker show' - one still has to wonder how awesome and more authentic it would have been, with cursing and nudity (being it's about bikers). All of the other qualities, plus an R rating - would have put this show over the top of the Sopranos. We never have to wonder about that with Sopranos, because it was on HBO.

• While Sopranos had some annoying characters, it didn't have any glowingly bad miscasting. SOA had a horrible miscast in one of its main roles - Maggie Siff as Tara Knowles. Seriously, it's like watching wood.

• Sopranos didn't have corny antagonists. SOA had some so corny you'd think they had a time machine to the 80s; most notably 'The League'.

• No one on the Sopranos was married to the creator, with their horrible music being played constantly from season 2 on.

Seasons ranked:

1. Season 1

2. Season 4

3. Season 3

4. Season 2.

5. Season 5

6. Season 7 -

-

-

10. Season 6. (The 2nd to last season flounders, much like the Sopranos. School shootings. Trannies. Like they were drawing subjects out of a hat. The last few episodes are decent, but can't redeem the season.)

The interesting thing is how they admit the entire intelligence apparatus is really just a 'wing of government' secret societies have taken over, and no one even bats an eye. Lol

One thing is for sure, the way they represent these 'bureaucrats of the ivory tower' leaves one wondering why anyone would even want to be involved in such a world.

The tone of this flick is as depressing as they come.

Every character soulless.

One of those movies that no doubt looked good on paper, but the finished product makes one come to the conclusion that they forgot movies are supposed to be entertaining, first and foremost.

Still, there's plenty of worse movies.

5 stars.

The first season is an easy 10.

But things must be graded on the whole, and the whole is a 7.

Season 2 meanders like they never conceptualized there being a 2nd season.

I've never been able to finish this series because of how much it falls off; which is crazy, considering the first season is some of the best TV ever made.

The first season they just made a good show, and the 2nd season is where they start having a bunch of politically correct crap.

Plus, they bring back an actor from the first playing a completely different role.

It's horribly jarring, and a 'suspension of disbelief' killer.

You no longer have Wild Bill who brought a lot to the story.

Calamity Jane is probably the most annoying part of the first season, and there's plenty more of her in the 2nd.

Swearengen gets neutered for the first part of the 2nd season, and he's the best part of the show.

They say some conflict is why there was never a season 4 - but there doesn't need to be an excuse; as I would have cancelled it after season 2.

Never been a fan of Cameron Diaz.

Never been a fan of Dennis Quaid.

Never been a fan of Jamie Foxx.

LL Cool J didn't do it any favors.

Somehow, this flick is still entertaining to watch every now and then - so I'm giving it a 7.

Pacino, Woods and Modine are all perfect for their roles.

Had all of those others been cast with someone better, this could have easily been a 9 star movie.

(It's impossible for a movie about professional football to be a 10 without using the real teams. Even if it's contractually impossible. I don't care.)

Especially, Cameron Diaz.

She was awful.

I think she's brought down every movie she's been in; outside of 'Something About Mary'.

There's 3 stories going on - a government inquiry, his personal life, and the story around the making of the bomb.

The first is 3 stars, the 2nd is a 5, and the 3rd - is an absolute 10.

Had they just made it a linear movie about the making of the bomb, ending on them all getting fired; with the government driving away with the bombs - this movie is a classic.

Instead, there's at least an hour and a half of stuff that drags the whole thing down at best, completely muddling everything at worst.

It's a cliche, but I'm saying it anyway - this movie didn't know what it wanted to be.

As for Nolan, It's not his best work.

Lots of 'flashes to artsy shots' that have no bearing on the lead's development, or that make it deep for the audience - in the beginning of the movie.

Luckily, this Nolan only lasts for the first 30 minutes.

It comes across as the government inquiries are there simply to create a 'jumping through time' that didn't need to be there.

The story was good enough that it didn't need to be cheapened with these 'tired parlor tricks of contemporary directors'.

As it sits, I'm breaking my own rules and giving it a 6 for 'better of the good for a one time watch'; even though I myself turned it off with 45 minutes left; as it felt like that's where the movie should have ended, anyway.

The pros: the story is absolutely solid. Everyone acted their parts well.

The cons: they made the mistake that separates the average from the greats - they have dumb family life scenes. It's almost like in modern times, there's quotas that dictate they have to have so many women somewhere in the movie. And it ALWAYS drags the thing down.

This movie might even be a 9 without it. It kills the pacing. If you take out all of the personal life crap and add another heist to the film - it becomes something special.

Well, and some of the cop lines were pretty cheesy. You can always tell when a nerd is trying to write street dialogue.

Of course the ads made this movie look like it would be about Napoleon's battles - proving they knew what we really wanted.

But also in the ads, were the couple quick glimpses of a woman.

Exact conversation... My buddy: "That new Napoleon looks good!" Me: "Yeah, but they hinted at a love interest. I hope the whole thing isn't about him and a chick." My buddy: "Yeah, that would suck."

Fast forward to reading the reviews, and whether positive or negative, they all confirm the majority of 'a story about Napoleon' - REVOLVES AROUND A CHICK.

Because whenever you study Napoleon, Lord know it's all about the chick he was nailing.

Hollywood sucks.

Girl world sucks.

I'm done.

It goes through all the motions of Band of Brothers - but has none of the charm.

People say, 'it focuses on the war, not the people' - but even in that, it's nothing one hasn't seen before.

Really tough to get into, especially if you're expecting something even remotely charming as Band of Brothers, with its dozens of great characters.

In the end, this was obviously a cash grab.

There is no way as much effort went into this as the other.

I refuse to give it higher than a 6.

I would rather watch B.o.B. 100 times than this a 2nd time.

I wish this got the treatment that the other did.

They had no problem regurgitating the mundane aspects of the other, why they wouldn't regurgitate the great aspects of the other - I have no clue.

Clearly, there was creative talent involved with the first, that wasn't involved with this one.

Bought this on Prime and you can hardly hear it with the volume all the way up.

Haven't seen that on any other movie, which makes me think that's how it is out of the box, from the production company.

I rarely give 1 stars, but this has to be a situation that merits it.

It makes it unwatchable.

I do remember watching the whole thing back in the day, and it was very cheesy, but entertaining.

A lot of movies get better with age, so thought I'd check it out again.

Oh well.

Word to the wise.

Bought this on Prime and you can hardly hear it with the volume all the way up.

Haven't seen that on any other movie, which makes me think that's how it is out of the box, from the production company.

I rarely give 1 stars, but this has to be a situation that merits it.

It makes it unwatchable.

I do remember watching the whole thing back in the day, and it was very cheesy, but entertaining.

A lot of movies get better with age, so thought I'd check it out again.

Oh well.

Word to the wise.

Very original premise that I think could be reworked into something great.

As for what was done, I'd say a 7 when it came out, but is more of a 5 now.

It would have done a great service to switch the classes of the girls.

Yuppies are hideous, through and through.

And a movie where the yuppies are the protagonists screws with your senses for the entire experience.

If you reverse the 2 characters - this movie would really work. Make Hedra the person looking for a roommate and Allison the crazy stalker. A perfect example of what I'm saying Is 'Pacific Heights' with Michael Keaton. 'A psycho yuppie taking advantage of working class people' is so believable your brain doesn't fight what it's witnessing the whole time. But how it sits - JJL sucks more sympathy out of you than Bridget Fonda in the first half.

I would say 'must be made for chicks' - but the nudity suggests they were actually gearing it towards men.

It uses the Hitchcock formula of 'the actual movie not starting until half way through', and it doesn't do it any favors.

I'm not sure it ever did Hitchcock's movies any favors.