Reviews

I was first fascinated by this show but then the cracks started to show. I loved the original movie and was very keen to see the new interpretation. It has many good features and at least 3 episodes with very good suspense. But then episodes 8, 9, 10 started to drag and became weary.

Good things: the cast and acting is good. Anthony Hopkins, Thandy Newton and some other more and less known actors do a good job. I specially like Hopkins and Newton characters, also the actress who played the "First Clementine". The visuals and scenery are good. The directing as per script seems to be good.

What starts to drag this series down is the script, concept and giant plot holes. While you do not expect a 100% accuracy from any of such series, here the plot holes are little to big. I understand that this is a mystery etc but i mean things that come across as not intentional but oversight of script writers and creators of the concept.

Such as important things about how the robots function and the rules of their functioning. One example: for some reason, if the service staff comes to collect the damaged robots for re-booting they are always wearing white protective suits with silicon masks. Why? The guests who interact and spent time amongst "corpses" of killed robots do not require any protective suits. Or is it to protect the robots? But from what? When they handle the damaged robots in the laboratory they often do not wear masks.

Why do the robots have to be naked when they are re-programmed? Why is it a crime to have them dressed up while talking to them? Also: when in one episode two technicians let the Thandy Newtons character walk into the upper floors -which is against the rules - it is in the full view of everyone as all walls are made of glass. And yet nobody seems to notice. Also, in one episode one of the technicians wants to use the body of a robot sexually while robot is in a sleep mode. He says to his colleague not to tell anyone. But... he is doing it in a glass cabinet in a full view of the whole floor! Another example: Newtons character commands the two technicians to change her program. She could not do much if they refused to do it but they still do and it is never explained why.

Concept: I find the shows overall concept a little pathetic. Of course we need secrets, plot twists, etc, but the "secrets" are just little pathetic and far fetched to my taste.

I like the scenes that happen in the "office" areas, in the more intimate setting and concentrate just on few characters at the time. All group scenes and endless mindless killing scenes get incredibly boring very soon. Also the repeated killings of the same characters. It does not work as it was intended, it just gets irritating. Its like yes, we get it, can you stop it now? Inn group scenes in desert, bush and small towns it is even difficult to figure out who is who, what is the meaning of this scene and how does it relate to general story.

Also I wish it would be easier to separate humans from robots because all robots look just like regular humans.Perhaps all guests could wear a special hat or something. Otherwise it simply difficult to follow what is happening.

The alterating between here and now reality and robots memories becomes increasingly confusing and difficult to follow in the second half of season one. Again, i understand it is part of concept but they should show it in such a way that the audiences could keep up and not get completely confused.

Most irritating is the story line of Dolores. It is not the fault of the actress of course who is acting well. I blame the script writer and director. Dolores story is a constant tear-jerker and she, Ted and William heavily started to get on my nerves in the end.

Her visits of a small town in the desert are very confusing, and i could not keep up with it.

There were some episodes that were very good, i think these were 5,6, 7. The beginning was quite good as well but then the season started to drag.

This movie is not absolutely perfect artistically, but considering all elements of the movie as a whole I think this is one of the best movies I have seen in last decade. And, as a movie lover, I have seen a LOT.

Why do I think so? Because it touches so many important issues in a deeply moving way. The question of fundamental selfishness and unfairness of success-oriented Western society where weak and less fortunate are stepped over, left behind and blamed for things that are not their fault. (Main character, James). Where your own family disowns you for the fact that you are the "sensitive one." Keeping the facade as versus truly loving and having compassion for someone. General attitudes towards homeless people and animals.

And, the theme that I am very passionate about: the relationship between human and animal, and treating an animal as an equal companion, not a "pet", destined to meet the emotional needs of a human - but not vice versa. I love the fact that the film so boldly showcases James love for his cat and treating his cat as a human person. Most people in the world still treat and think of animals as objects. Even the most pampered pets are little more than fluffy toys or accessories. The children abuse is a widely recognized issue this days but the daily abuse of animals by humans is equally important issue. What happens in the farms is often beyond horrible. Animal rights activists and people who deeply love and care for animals are often ridiculed and thought of as crazy. Often people assume that if you love an animal as deeply as you would love a human then this is some sort of "substitute" for human relationship - while it is not. James and Bob love for each other is boldly shown as normal and equal to "human loving human" and I love that about the film.

Film about James and Bob shows what the relationship between a man and higher vertebrae animal should be: the relationship of equals, treating the animal as "person" with his /her rights similar to human. We should execute our superiority only in terms of helping the animal such as providing food or medication if they are ill or starving but not using them for food, fur or entertainment or curing our emotional problems without giving anything in return. I like the fact that James love interest was vegan and through her character the general mass abuse of animals by humanity was spoken of.

I also liked the fact that they did not try to over dramatize the story it but kept it real, the chain of events made up of little daily encounters and struggles in James life. I have lived in London and all the situations and characters that James encountered looked realistic to me. I think the general setting and atmosphere of London life was well portrayed.Mr. Tearaway performance as James was incredibly touching and real. Also the other characters in the film were well executed and came across as believable human beings. He had a good chemistry with his love interest, who was also a colorful character. I also loved the fact that the director at many occasions used the POV camera for the cat.

If there is anything to(constructively)criticize about this movie,then perhaps the cats personality and character could have had more attention. After all, he was one of the two main characters and Bob-James relationship was the vertebrae of the story. The director used physically cats POV camera but I wished he would have found the ways to show cats psychology and his side of attachment to James more. Something was lacking in this department in spite of cat looking incredibly cute of course, but while director did a very good job getting into James head, he should have got into cats head too. There would have been lots of ways/artistic tricks to show cats inner life more, his love, worries, attachment etc.At the moment it is more like pretty footage of a cute cat.

Also I wish the director/scriptwriter would have been more heavy handed on these stupid organizations and institutions who put a starving person into an impossible situation -like prohibit the person busking while this is his only way to earn income. Or blame him for breaking the rules of Big Issue selling while the incident was not his fault. I have not been homeless in London but I have experienced first handed the stupidity and numb ignorant cruelty of British bureaucracy and the upper-handed selfishness even of those organizations who kind of help homeless but do it in a very selfish and ignorant way.

However in spite of these two critical remarks I consider this film one of the best I have seen in recent years. It is sincere, touching and carries so many valuable messages without being pathetic or tear-jerker. A great film with a big hearth.

Well, it was not as bad as Force Awakens, it was quite watchable. However, I agree with all those who say that this film has not recreated the original magic in the films written, directed or at least produced by George Lucas himself. Whoever makes the film puts the stamp of their mind and imagination on it and neither of two films made by Disney has the feel and magic of George Lucas Star Wars world. In spite of any flaws that Lucas films had, he created a huge gallery of very interesting, unique, memorable characters and different worlds in universe. His films were always full of surprises. It was easy to remember all the main characters. Both in Force Awakens and Rogue one we have a bunch of greasy looking fellows, and they always come in a big pile and are hard to remember as most of them are quite boring. A lot of places in the universe look too much like Earth. Rogue one was definitely better and more intelligent out of the two made by Disney, but still, it had too much confusing, all-the-same looking action, predictable and clichéd storyline. Still, it was OK to watch at Saturday evening.

This movie is so bland and boring and full of lame clichés. There is nothing exciting about this movie. Why did all this have to happen on the space ship? This story has nothing to do with sci fi. It does not work as a Sci Fi movie, nor thriller, nor drama, nor romance.

I agree with other people who have slammed the script writer. What was he thinking? The whole story was mad up from the most lame clichés of the Hollywood movies of the last decade, such as Bruce Willis save-the world heroes, and the tear jerking romantic movies. Both leads were as boring as hell, zero chemistry, all the scenes like eating dry Weetabix.Jennifer Lawrence is a likable actress, and I liked her in Hunger Games, especially part one and two. But here? Fault of the lousy director and scriptwriter.

I join with those people who say that they do not understand what the critics are on about. I think people who criticize this movie do not understand the style of humor the movie has.

I think the setting and concept was quite original for the comedy and Jack Black was as funny as ever. I really like Jack Black, he is one of my favorite comedy actors. He has many things going for him that make him very likable: he has very positive energy overall, warm and friendly on-screen aura, is over the top, crazy in a cute sort of way, spunky and sparkly.

Michael Cera had a very good chemistry with Jack Black, balancing his extrovert Zed with sattle awkwardness and kookiness.

The actress who played Cera's characters girl friend was super cute, i have forgotten her name, she is quite famous. All other supporting characters did a good job as well.

Really, if people are giving this film a bad rap I just think they did not understand the off-beat humour of the film.

It started out well, the beginning where they show only details of each candidate, is stylish and intriguing. However, when the main part of the movie starts, it all becomes more and more ridiculous as the movie goes on. Everybody in the room seems so anxious as if their life was at stake. And yet, the worst that can happen to them is that they have to leave the room and go home. All the menacing security guard does is grabbing them by shoulders and pushing them out to the corridor. And yet, these people go totally mental over this exam to the point where they are trying to kill each other. it simply does not cut the mustard.If they want to show how they all are getting so worked up about something there should be something bigger at steak. As the film goes on everything seems more and more artificial and constructed, it does not grasp the audience.

I thought the first season was a bit boring and I really did not get into it. But right now in season 2 it keeps getting better. Suspense is very good and lots of mystery is created and good cliff hangers. The ambiguity of robots is well presented, we really do not know what to expect from them, and what is their pattern of behaviour and the intentions. And more and more human characters become unpredictable too. Trinity from Matrix (well, the actress, I mean...) is the evil scientist who has sticked some live humans consciousness into her pretty laptop and we do not know what she is up to either. Is she siding with synths? Does she want to kill all the conscious synths? Does she plan the world dominion with the help of synths? We do not know.

I understand that this gritty hand held camera style was intentional, but it did not work for me. I never liked these "Blair which project" style hand-held soddy grimy footages and if i had known that the entire film is in that style i would not have gone to see it. The story line was good and had a potential for a good drama or thriller. The ethical dilemma that the main character suddenly is forced to face in the middle of the film was a good hook for a gripping drama. But none of it really played out or was used properly in the film.

The muddy soddy style with ugly claustrophobic frames, none of which was in focus did not add anything to the film. The characters and dramatic element remained undeveloped and the fact that that there was not one good clear frame simply started to irritate. Until about the middle it was difficult to even understand what was going on or separate the characters from each other as we could barely see them. There was nothing to enjoy, or to go along with.This film was simply annoying, pointless and boring.

I thought that was one of the funniest sitcoms I have ever seen. I did not feel it was racist, it was a rather light-hearted take on cultural differences. The English people were equally target of humor. One of the funniest episodes was when Queens English speaking rich Arab wanted to teach English to his Scottish chauffeur but ended up learning Scottish himself.

In spite of many politically incorrect jokes i did not feel the program was racist because it was all warm humour and all the kooky characters were incredibly lovable. Also the relationship between the teacher and his grazy bunch of students was hearth-warming.

As setting, it was very realistic. The kind of classroom and school building is until today a very typical setting of TESOL and ESOL type English courses for adult foreigners in London. As for characters they were not too far from truth either. In this type of English classes for foreigners there are always lots of colorful characters and the kind of mischief and crazy stuff they get up to in sitcom is not too far from the truth. In this kind of courses adults become like children again also in real life.

This is one of the most hilarious films i have ever seen. It is also one of my top then favorite movies of all times. The book that it is based on is equally good. I have watched this movie many times, book in the hand, following the chapters in the book. And both movie and book are good each in their own right. The silver screen's favorite hearth rob, pretty boy Johnny Depp is totally unrecognizable as a bald, paranoid, out-of-it reporter. He is funny as hell. Benicio del Toro who plays second fiddle is not bad either in funny department.

Basically, it is a road trip, story about a journalist who is trying to get to his assignment, to cover some sort of boring race, but is hell bent on drugs and gets into all sorts of sticky situations - a lot of them engineered by his equally irresponsible friend, played by del Toro. It is also a comedic cult movie about a certain era in American history. The script, the directing, acting, visuals, sense of humor - all supreme. A must see!

This series is a kind of Chinese equivalent of Tudors which is one of my favorite historic TV series. There is much common with Tudors: most of the story plays out in the Emperors court that is full of intrigues, plots and beautiful women. Also it falls largely into the similar sort of era: 17th century if I understand correctly,Henry's life was a bit earlier but not too much.

Also the Emperor is similar sort of fella to our Henry: right old moron, serial wife killer and a sociopath. And the directors/script writers take is the same: they are creating a believable historic world but are not too worried to follow every historic fact to the dot. The story is loosely based on some real peoples lives but obviously a lot of artistic freedom is taken to create this story.

There is a lot to love about this series: it is really well written and directed and it never gets dull. The scriptwriter surely knows how to create cliff hangers and keep the audiences on their toes. The Chinese people are known to be very medicoulos in everything throughout the history and the director proves that: he firmly guides his massive amount of main and side characters through vast amounts of plot twists and still manages to remember the character continuity details for each one of them.

What I also liked very much, the character development is as deep as in a feature movie. Often in series characters remain sketch-like whilst here the director digs deep into the human depth with all the main ladies. Also the character development is very thorough and well planned, revealing layer by layer every ones true nature (Empress, Consort Hua, Lady Cao) or character changes (Zhen Huang).

It would have been very easy just to show these women as evil scheming bitches, but the director shows the depth of human tragedy how they were caught up in the evil infrastructure where they often had no choice as to resort to evil methods to survive. Every important characters personal story is revealed layer by layer and how they came to the point where they were in the story.

What I found particularly fascinating was all the customs and rituals of the palace. It seems that a lot of historical research had gone into that production. I doubted if they really dressed and behaved in such peculiar ways, such as women wearing these long finger extentions for example. So I did some research online. And indeed, at these times aristocratic women wore those weird things, as sign that they did not have to work. They were common accessories.

I found it very amusing how they all offered each other bowls of soups, teas and medicines all the time, half of them poisoned or laced with something very harmful - either making you infertile, destroying your voice, infecting you with plague. A lethal plum soup was funniest.

Everyone in the palace was busy sending each other medicines, teas, fabrics, jewellery, fragrances, pot plants, precious stones, incense, all of them meant to manipulate the target one way or other.

Killing each other off in most brutal ways was also common place in palace, and almost in every episode a person is beaten to death either on order of Emperor or other high standing person. The concubines and female servants are beaten to death at the same rate as male subjects.

As for the weaknesses of the series,the weakest link in the whole story is the actor who plays the Emperor. Where did they get him from? They have the whole China to choose from,why did they choose him???? The female leads tear the screen apart like she-wolves but he is like out of amateur theatre.

He is so wooden. He simply delivers the lines and that's about it. He has no emotions, no reactions and no concept of his character. Now and then, on the orders of the director apparently, he throws a bowl on the floor to show he is angry. On his death bed he rolls his eyes left and right a few times. That's it! And he was not good-looking either, so there was nothing to compensate his boring and dull presence. This actor really annoyed the hell out of me.

In a way, he reflects the principle of the society that is portrayed in the series: the female actresses work so hard to create exciting characters and he is just sitting there like a Muppet, has not put any effort into his character, yet holds a lead role in major TV series.

But in spite of disappointing Emperor, it is still very exciting series. And I very much recommend to watch the original 76 episodes, not the 6 part short version. There are so many story lines and details and 6 part version is not doing justice to this exciting 76 episode series.

This movie had lots of flaws but overall still watchable such as Saturday night entertainment for example. I liked the actors, the setting, and atmosphere and the base idea of the script was really good.

But the way the whole script was played out and directed was full of plot holes and that was the main flaw of he movie and why it was not as engaging as it could have been. It is very unfair to blame actors for it though as some other reviewers have done as the actors simply have to do what the script and director says.

So the way Lisas character was acting and reacting in certain situations was totally unrealistic. Like she had been threatened by the geeky guy before and when he turns up again instead of locking herself in trailer she goes out and offers him a sandwich. OK, suppose that was for diversion,for calming him down. But while the guy is eating sandwich, she had a good opportunity to run inside, lock the door, grab a hammer or something.But no, she instead joins him for a drink! On top of that, she lets him inside all the while she had all the time to slam the door in front of his nose, lets him to fix the sink and then volunteers to go near him!

Or, a after another attempt of sexual attack, she undresses herself with lights on and windows uncovered! Also, the couple who rented her the trailer were just 50 m away in the house! Yet it never occurred to her to ask their help or to sleep in the house together with couple after the attacks and threats! Also, in the life threatening situations Lisa remains surprisingly calm and mellow. That was not very realistic either. A normal reaction would have been absolute hysteric and panic.

In spite of all that, I still quite liked the movie but I wish i had thread and needle to sew up the plot holes!

I most genuinely like Joanna Lumley and Jennifer Saunders and their comedy series, both Absolutely Fabulous and French and Saunders. But the film was very average or below that. It was not embarrassing, just boring most of the time and also looked as if directed and shot by recent film school graduates. The film lacked fluency and the story line and episodes did not jell together naturally. Most of the jokes felt forced and over-done. They had all this colorful characters and situations at their disposal but it seemed they lacked imagination of what to do with them. Also they had tried to cram in too much. Too many cameos etc, too many main characters, etc. It would have benefited if they had cut down on all main characters and also cameos and locations and instead developed better the main situations and characters. Also, Kate Moss being a center piece of the plot line and being a famous supermodel - could they not give her a proper make up at least? She looked very bland and was not even given a proper slice of screen time. They did not concentrate on anything and run over everything in a hurry. So I still like very much this two actresses but it is a little sad that movie did not turn out like i expected.

This movie is a proof that you can make a good film with minimal means - what is important is the right idea, good script, good actress. The audience creates suspense in their heads. This suspense thriller was more interesting than many movies with lots of actors and special effects and fancy sets that I have seen. I think it was because the psychological suspense and protagonists duel with unknown antagonist was so well created. And Maisie Williams did a very good job carrying the movie all by herself. I remember there was once a film with similar idea, phone booth, with Colin Farrell in the main role - but I liked this film much more. And the film had some good messages too.

I do love Taika Waititis movies and I totally dig his style. I also think he is a very talented and unique movie-maker. I liked "Wilderpeople", but in my opinion it was not as strong as Boy or What we do in the shadows.

I feel that his off-beat low key style went a little too far this time, so that as an audience I lost emotional connection with the story and characters a few times. The flow of the movie was not as good as in Shadows or Boy, and with this style of movie, the right flow is very important. Also, it felt at times that the style was prevailing over the content.

It is interesting that even though the story line in What we do in the shadows was even more fragmentary, it somehow worked there. And even though Shadows had a also a very unique styling it never felt like forced or artificial.

Also I thought that the dogs in the film were totally unnecessary. They did not add anything to the story and the way they were filmed created the feeling of dis-continuity. In some scenes the dogs appeared and in others seemed to have disappeared forever. Then again they appeared erratically as if the director suddenly had remembered: "Blimey, i had the dogs a few scenes ago, I need to show the ears or the tail for continuity. "

Having said that, overall Wilderpeople was still a positive movie experience. All characters were funny and likable, even the evil social services inspector. The kid who played the main role was simply wonderful and so cute. Sam Neil as "uncle" and actress who played "auntie" did great job as well. I loved the cinematography, the intentional bending rules of "good" cinematography, the New Zealand-specific details in peoples homes, etc.

I admired the unique and quirky cinematography already in the Shadows, and here Waiti continues serving an intentionally off-beat strange and wonderful cinematography.

Also I liked the idea - two free spirits, outcasts of the society against the heartless and bureaucratic system. I loved that in the end the kid and the uncle were reunited in a straight forward happy end fashion. Even though the film had some flaws, definitely would recommend it as another example of talented and unique Taika Waititis work and also showcasing some wonderful NZ actors.

Ups, almost forgot:besides the leads, auntie and social inspector one of the best characters is the wild bush man, played by the funnyman whose name always escapes me but he was the leader of verwolves in What we do in the shadows (Remember "We are the verwolves, not the swear-wolves"?)

First of all, I think MADONNA CAN ACT and to a good standard. Most of the films she has chosen to act in have not been the best scripts, but Madonna has done a decent job in each one of them, being sincere, natural and cute. Except this one. And i think I know what the problem is. Even I admit that Madonnas acting was not good in this one. And not just Madonnas. All people in this movie came across as amateur actors. But i think it is unfair to blame Madonna for it or for all of it.

Actors always depend on the director and script writer. Has not anyone ever noticed how even A-list Hollywood actors at least in 50% of their films do a job that is mediocre and everyone has at least few films that are embarrassing? If the director is a visionary, had good rapport with the actors, has chosen the right actors etc, they do a stellar job.

But with a different, mediocre, limited-minded director the same famous actors do a crappy job. It happens to everyone, but for some reason only Madonna gets ridiculed for it. But lets take another pop star, Justin Timberlake who also has done a number of acting jobs. In my opinion, most of the roles Timberlake has done are embarrassing and have amateurish quality. But somehow it has gone unnoticed. Because Timberlake is a man, perhaps? Double standards?

I think the reason this movie went totally wrong for Madonna was that the director was her husband Guy Richie. In the history of film, it never has given any good results, being directed by or co-acting with your own husband or wife (or g friend/b friend). Most of such movies, involving famous actors have fallen flat.Like the movie Jennifer Lopez and Ben Afflek did together. Or Eyes Wide Shut (Kidman and Cruise). Etc. For some reason it does not work. Perhaps it is too close to home and off-work relationships get on the way.

I think Madonna actually was a right sort of person for that role and I also liked the Giuseppe actor, they had good chemistry - but were badly scripted and directed. The original films remake with Madonna in title role would have been very interesting with a right director. Perhaps even Lina Wertmüller herself, she would have pulled the right "notes" out of the leading actors.

But I understand why Madonna wanted to make this movie. Unfortunately, it seems her husband did not take it seriously at all and directed it in a typical British dude style, making a joke out of an interesting material.

Madonna might be this, that and third, but so are most of famous people. But for some reason people simply love ridicule her for her acting. She had only one floppy acting job, so stop bashing her!

Tudors is in my opinion the representative of the new wave of TV series, where a lot is invested into the artistic quality of each episode and also the new and innovative style is showcased.

Almost every episode of Tudors is a little gem and it never gets boring. It is intense all the way through and not only the main players but also all supporting characters and one-off appearances are masterfully crafted and "filled from inside" with psychological truth.

I think people who nag at the historical accuracy don't really get the vision of the show. This series does not have the ambition of being to-the-dot-accurate history lesson, it's ambition is to create an exciting drama. And that function it fills beautifully.

Any movie maker knows that even if you make a documentary you cannot take every hour of every day and show every minute of it. You have to make a selection of the facts - and that selection will always be subjective. Besides, even historians do not know exactly what went on in Henry's court on a daily basis because they did not sleep in his bed and did not eat at his table, did they? The facts we have from history are also just a selection and there is no knowing whether it is a whole truth or not.

And movie making is an art form - and in the work of art it is perfectly legal to bend the reality any way you like - as far it is engaging to the audiences.

The bending of some facts is totally insignificant from the point of view of a bigger picture. The show has two main layers - one is timeless, universal - this is the story about human nature and basic forces that drive it, about darkness and light in human soul - and the other is a specific period in history, the specifics and the feel of it. The show blends both aspects naturally and beautifully.

Many people complain about the choice of the actor for Henry the VIII. In my opinion the choice of Jonathan Mayers was a stroke of genius. Yes, he did not have the physique of the character but he portrayed brilliantly the nature of Henry the VIII - his dark side, his inner conflicts, his human side. Besides, it is a love story - who would want to see fat and shapeless Henry? Beat the historical accuracy! I loved the way they had sexed up the historic characters.

The other stroke of genius was to cast Natalie Dormer as Ann Boleyn. Hers was the best Ann Boleyns portrayal ever. She had exactly this quality that has been described about historic Ann Boleyn - she was not a classical beauty, but there was something irresistibly captivating about her. I never got tired of watching her. Also Dormer and Jonathan Mayers had a fantastic on screen chemistry.

What made that series overall so good was that almost all characters, both big and small were intense and believable. They bent the facts now and then but I feel they portrayed the psychology of the people of Henry the VIII times very well. The dreams and goals people had, their fears, their mindset, etc. They managed to show the inner life of historic figures in such a way that it was really believable and captivating.

I do not understand at all, why this comedy got so much criticism. I love this little comedy, it is so full of fun and I also love Madonnas character. So whole-hearthedly I give it 7. I think everything in this movie comes together very well: the funny idea, directing and acting. Madonna is brilliant as revenge-seeking Nikki Finn, a girl who is a funny mixture of childishness, craziness, other-worldliness and sex-appeal. The funniest bit is when she climbs over the fence in a leather jacket and a tutu, to save her one true love. Madonna is not afraid to be totally silly in this role and really becomes the character she is playing.

I saw it first time on a day when I was very very sad and down, on the edge of breakdown, and this little comedy made my day. When finished watching, instead of tears of sadness I had tears from laughter on my face. I whole heartedly recommend this. And yes, Madonna can act - not just in this movie, in other ones too!

The fact that this film managed to get 7,3 average score on idmb and is nominated for Oscar and other awards is BEYOND ME. It really makes me question the taste and mindset of general public and also professional movie evaluators. This film is artistically 100% tasteless, and the content is not funny - it is offensive and racist.

I remember when the UK reality TV personality Jane Goody (now deceased) said something about poppadoms in relation to the Indian movie star. This one sentence nearly cost Jane Goody her career. And yet Sacha Baron makes a whole film - a horribly offensive racist film - and this is going up to Oscars? Where is the logic? I have a very good sense of humor and also a broad taste in movies, as I have seen loads of different movies and i am able to enjoy many different styles and genres. However, in this movie i did not find anything to like or even barely tolerate.

I question Sacha Barons sanity and IQ level after seeing this movie. What is the point of this movie? Why did he pick Kazakhstan people as his target? Judging from the movie, he knows nothing about Kazakhstan.

I was born in Eastern Europa and i have also been in Kazakhstan. I found nothing funny in making fun of little known nations with a very ancient and interesting cultural heritage. Kazakhstan people are nothing like pictured in the movie. If anything, in the movie version of Kazakhstan people Sacha Baron portrayed himself. And the portrait of Sacha Baron I get from this movie is following: a 5 year old boy with serious psychological issues and ugly distorted mind.

I lo-o-oved this suspense thriller! I absolutely hate modern thrillers which are all about spies and secret agents and all these gun-wielding tough guys with shaved heads and tattoos and one too many special effects. I love good old-fashioned suspense which is based on a good script and solid old-school standards of acting and directing. This is a good example how you can create on-the-edge-of-your-seat high quality thriller on a low budget, purely with psychological suspense.

There is this guy, whose wife suddenly got missing and you are biting your finger nails for him because unexpected calamities keep coming and you are really worried about this poor guy ...

The final twist is kept to the very very end and it is a real good one, the one you did not see coming. You have to watch to find out!

I generally like this sitcom very much. I have seen most all episodes, but over the years I have watched them over and over again. Especially when I feel sad or down - whenever Stephens cozy home and Samanthas twitchy nose appears on the screen, I instantly feel better. The creators of the show nailed it when creating the overall "universe" and atmosphere of the show. Also, even though I do not always like Samanthas character from artistic point of view, Samantha as a character and as presented by Elizabeth Montgomery has a kind of therapeutic impact on me. Samantha (as an on-screen character) has a great calming impact and also has a sort of protective motherly energy which I do not get from anywhere in real life - but sometimes need badly. She is this "Good fairy god-mother archetype", a supernatural female protector. Their home comes across as very cozy also, no wonder that many other characters - both humans and supernatural - want to stay there as well - uninvited. I also love the gallery of kooky characters they created over the years.

As for acting, I think in first 3 seasons Montgomerys and Darrin-actors acting was the most "wooden" one. Even though I loved them both, I noticed that none of their conversations or reactions flow naturally. their acting had almost amateurish quality in my opinion. Montgomerys Samantha became much more natural when they changed the Darrin actor due to first Darrins health problems. In the first 3 seasons, Samantha never got really angry or sad about anything, even in most desperate situations or when Darrin or somebody else had done something really annoying. That was kind of unnatural. I liked it much more when Samantha started to have some believable reactions, like getting properly angry or worried.

In fact, when it comes to acting, I think Montgomery did a much better job as Serena. She really had fun with that character, and I always waited for Serena to turn up. Also even though I knew it was Montgomery as well, I always forgot about it because she came across as a totally different actress. It is also notable how well Samanthas and Serenas reactions to each other were played out - come to think of, it was all one actress who had to react to her own self! My favorite character however was Endora. I think it was Darrin who treated her badly, not the other way around. My other favorite characters: Serena, aunt Clara, Larry, and, of course the Kravitzes. I think both first and second Gladys Kravitz actress did a great job, creating two versions of a snoopy neighbor. Abner Kravitzes reactions to his wife's snooping antics were priceless.

As for flaws, I already mentioned some wooden quality in the main couples acting in first 3 seasons or so. The other thing, I necessarily did not like the general morals it seemed to be preaching. It was a very fifties moral, where the wife's place - even the supernaturally gifted and beautiful wife's "right" place is only at home. Whenever Samantha accidentally shined in any area in mortal world (besides being a gifted which) Darrin immediately put her down. Even if Samantha did it to help Darrin (which she did most of the time, she was very selfless most of the time, putting everybody elses well-being ahead of her own).

Also, Samantha was born as a which - if Darrin loved her for right reasons - such as for being what she is - he should never have demanded that Samantha give up her which craft. As compared to kind, broadminded and helpful Samantha Darrin comes across as really selfish, petty minded and limited person. What we see on the screen, is how he constantly criticizes Samantha, cancels their special dinner appointments, loads some extra unexpected wifely duties on Samantha and constantly gets seduced by other women. However for some reason Samantha stands by him, saying Darrin is kind and loving man. Smantha treats his relative with kindness and respect, yet Darrin is very rude to all Samanthas relatives.

Just like Endora, as a viewer I want to know what does she see in that chauvinist moron of a man? However, in spite of the flaws there is some timeless magic in that show, and the positive sides outweigh the negatives. So I think I keep watching the old episodes over and over again.

I enjoyed that thriller. I think, both directing and acting was solid and good quality. The script was up to a standard too, only downfall was that the twist was kind of predictable from some points onward. In spite of this, it managed to keep up suspense until the end.

I very much liked Renee Zellweger in that movie. I think she gave a real good performance as a social worker and so did the other main character, little girl in her care. The development of the relationship between the two is the backbone that carries the film, and they both do a brilliant job at it. The scenes between the do are all very strong, full of psychological suspense.

That is the other thing why I liked this movie: it uses the minimal amount of gore and CSI and maximal amount of psychological suspense. The visual revealing of the horror at the end is also done tastefully, and most importantly, not overdone.