jeffrey-46

OMG I love this show. I've seen up through S02E03 on Amazon Prime.

I only gave it a 9 because I don't like to give anything a 10.

Others have gone into good detail of what is good about this show so I'll just add some bullet points that I didn't see covered (although with 250+ reviews I probably just missed 'em)

In no particular order other than stream-of-consciousness:

* Detailed, realistic science fiction * Space behaves like, well, space * Gravity. They did a stellar job with gravity. It isn't perfect. But they emphasize realistic ways to simulate gravity (ships under continuous acceleration, spinning, ring-shaped space stations). And they shut gravity off when appropriate. * Space ship battles are incredibly thoughtfully designed, with an eye for small details. They pump the air out of the ship before a battle, for goodness' sake. I can't think of *any* other scifi space show that goes into these details * Consistency. Characters act consistently. Environments act consistently. * Details. So many details! Mag boots. Ship maneuvers. technology such as computer/handheld devices. All so believable. * Mormons! There are mormons, because, of course there are. And they aren't even the bad guys! (I only state it this way because too often, mysterious religious groups are used as hollywood shorthand for "bad guys"). The presence of Mormons just enriches the worldbuilding. * I love the fact that Eros station just looks like a giant potato with a porthole on its butt. It isn't polished. It isn't flashy. It's grimy and utilitarian. * I love that every move made by a spaceship has corresponding thrusters pushing it in that direction. The space ships do not fly like fighter jets, like they do in other typical sci fi shows. They fly like rocks. * I love the fact that space craft tracking screens look like legitimate space object tracking screens, with curved, mathematically drawn projected trajectories.

I can't gush enough about the "hard" sci-fi elements. I haven't even gushed about the production yet:

* Story is detailed, in-depth, and engaging. It's basically a political/war drama, but it is very well written. * Acting is great. Seriously. Even the throwaway characters are great. * Anyone can die at any time. Very Game-of-Thrones-y in this regard, in a good way. Builds tension very realistically. * Costumes, sets, graphics, cinematography are all excellent

Star Trek. I used to like Star Trek. Have you seen Star Trek Beyond (2016) though? That was terrible. Everything that is done wrong in Star Trek Beyond is done correctly in The Expanse. In fact, I'm not sure I can watch any Star Trek show or movie again after The Expanse.

Ultimately The Expanse feels like a combination of Battlestar Galactica (2005 one) and Firefly, more than any other series I can think of.

The management at Pixar must think the public is just barely smart enough to be able to drool on down to the movie theatre without dying in an accident putting their underwear on, and plunk down their hard earned cash. "HA ha ha the public is so dumb! Who cares if the movie makes no sense? Just fill it full of pwitty pictures and cutey pie robots. It's like printing money!"

I am INCENSED that this basically crappy movie is in the top 50 movies of ALL TIME? ALL TIME?????? This movie does nothing new, AT ALL. It replays so many clichés and movie idioms that only retarded 5 year olds wouldn't be able to see them as they get hit over the head by them. ugh.

And the contradictions! Plot holes! Things that just plain don't make sense!

I can only ask questions, and believe me, this is just scratching the surface:

• Why would EVE have such a powerful weapon AT ALL? The Earth is supposed to be uninhabited!!!

• Why is WALL-E smart and self-aware in the first place at all? Never explained.

• Why would a stupid static zap fix WALL-E? Its the dumb ol' "magic kiss" ending that has plagued stories for literally millenia

• There is NO ONE on that big ship that notices ANYTHING?? I mean, c'mon. There's this 50 acre swimming pool. I know, the movie is trying to make a point, but c'mon already.

• How are kids created?

• What about the other ships that left Earth? Where are they?

• Why couldn't they just settle on another planet?

• Why is Otto so dead set on not going back to Earth? Not really explained, and if Otto doesn't really have a reason, then all the drama is sucked out of the whole last third of the movie.

• How are they POSSIBLY going to fix the Earth? I mean, they can't frikin get out of their floaty chairs, LET ALONE FARM, BUILD, AND GENERALLY DO ANYTHING. It's not like the Earth in the movie is even inhabitable yet -- one teensy plant does not an inhabitable Earth make.

• Why is the litmus test for EVE any green plant? I mean, that alone doesn't really make any sense

Ugh, I could go on. I have better questions, even. But I am getting tired. Unfortunately my 5yo likes the movie, so I end up watching it over and over. And every time I do I dislike it more.

Pleeease, Pixar, Incredibles 2!!

So, I got a free preview pass for this thing. So even if it was horrible, at least I wasn't out 50 bucks, which is how much I think movie tickets are these days. But I digress.

One note on my theater: the sound system was WAAAAY too loud, like, hurt-your-ears, rock concert loud, and actually distracted from the movie. I was not the only one there who felt this way. But once again I digress; I just mention this because this fact, which was not the movie's fault, might have affected my enjoyment a tad.

Anyway, here's the good:

* Josh Hartnet as Eben

* Supporting cast, mostly. Eben's brother, decent actor; Eben's wife is hot; the Grizzly Bear Smith character (not sure the character's name but you'll know who I mean) was pretty good. Overall, acting was acceptably good.

* Special effects, especially the gore, were all pretty good. The gore was very realistic. Too realistic? Maybe. But it *is* a horror flick

* Concept, vampires in an endless night, was new. I think? I haven't seen quite exactly that setup in a vampire flick before. Kudos.

* Production, delivery, filming, all decent to good

And the bad

* It really didn't do anything new as far as horror movies go. As in, there were plenty of horror movie clichés.

* It didn't do anything new as far as vampire movies go. Standard vampire clichés as well.

* Quite a few typical Hollywood holes. Such as, why can't planes come in when it is dark? I mean, 30 days of dark does not have to mean 30 days of no plane flights, does it? I've flown at night, people! And, dark all the time in winter in Alaska means IT'S FORTY BELOW ZERO ALL THE FRICKIN' TIME! Put a hat on! But no, we are actors, we can be in the cold with minimal cold weather gear. And, so, they are hiding in an attic, WITH WINDOWS, and although, yes, there is a covering over the window, please, people, turn out your light!

I dunno, it's little things like closing up these holes that make an unbelievable scenario -- and vampires is pretty much always always an unbelievable scenario -- believable. Make the tiny things realistic and believable and it is easier to believe the outlandish stuff.

But overall, an alright movie. Probably scarier in the theater, but probably more worth the expense of renting on DVD.

I had never even *heard* of the series "Firefly" let alone this movie. It popped up automatically as a suggestion by Netflix. And a good suggestion! This movie has what the latter-day Star Wars movies should have had -- good character development, with shades of gray for all the characters (is he a good guy? A bad guy? the answer to that for all the characters was "somewhere in between"), good story with depth and creativity and attention to detail, kick-ass special effects (allright, Star Wars had that), great action sequences, etc. But this movie is plot and character driven ahead of anything else -- the action and f/x are just icing. (And that, of course, is what is wrong with the latter day Star Wars movies -- they are f/x driven and plot and characters are secondary. But I digress) I have only a couple of minor complaints, mostly stemming from the somewhat B-movie level of production

• Chase scenes really seemed to be filmed in slow motion.

• *every* planet surface looked *exactly* the same, that is to say, a suspiciously large amount like California desert.

But seriously, sooper minor quibbles. I highly recommend this movie for sci fi fans and would even put it on the same picks list including things like Matrix, Star Wars (ANH and ESB), and 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was *that* good.

This movie really was disappointing. I thought it was really going to be a great movie. I guess "oscar nominated" doesn't mean as much as it should.

Pros

Beautiful to look at. Beautifully filmed. The race scenes looked marvelous. The sets are great. The period details seem authentic (I can't judge for reality, but everything looks nice). The horses are magnificent. Howard's new wife is pretty. etc.

Uplifting. It really is an uplifting story. Potentially, at least. (If not for its sappiness and cliches, but some people might not mind/notice.)

Harmless/family-friendly. It has very little swearing, no nudity or explosions or drug use or murder or violence. Well, not none, but not the graphic gratuitous hollywood stuff.

Good acting. All of the actors are and were really quite good.

Cons

Sappy and full of Hollywood cliches. <spoiler>For example, when Red got "really really injured" the fact that Something Bad Was About To Happen wwas practically written on the bottom of the screen in closed-captioning, the way it was set up. Projected from a mile away. And that's just one example.

Poor character development.

Story details glossed over. One minute, Seabiscuit is a loser horse, the next, he is winning every race and loved by millions. The change was that quick in the movie, and even if it happened like that in real life, it just didn't feel right or make sense on the screen. Once again, just one example.

Etc. etc. I could go on, but my wife is yelling at me to put some pants on. So see you all later!

I don't understand how so many people could give this movie positive reviews. It was basically a stupid movie. I'll break it down into pros and cons (Caution: possibly some spoilers, not that it matters -- you can see where this movie is going from Pluto):

Pros

* Good music (I agree with some of the other reviewers on that one)

* Charlize is hot.

* Some funny bits, especially with Seth Green.

* Some neat-o, whiz-bang tricky/clever james-bondian heist stuff

* Slightly less stupid than the last James Bond movie, Die Another Day.

Cons

* Good music does not a good movie make.

* A hot chick does not a good movie make (but it doesn't hurt)

* The funny bits were actually tiresome and stupid after a while (e.g. the epilogue where Seth's character finally gets the stereo he wants. Just plain stupid scene).

* Some *semblance* of reality would be nice, here! I mean, I realize that this is a hollywood movie, but at least please don't act like the audience is a bunch of idiots! (although judging from how many people liked this movie...well...you never know).

Examples of stupid stuff:

-- There is no way Charlize could have opened that safe with the "glass panel" lock the way she tried to open it (by "touch"). Especially after the glass panel was broken! I mean they *explained* how hard this thing was to open because of that glass panel and then she breaks it and then she can open it anyways???

-- The motorcyclists chasing them in the subway. How on earth could they possibly have known (A) where they were, (B) that they escaped through the passage that they did and (3) how could they have gotten there in the first place? The traffic was all backed up!

-- There is no way that the *entire* team would have survived being in ice water for as long as they did, wether or not they had a scuba tank.

-- $37 Million is not nearly enough money, the way Ed Norton appeared to be spending it! That Aston Martin alone is over a quarter million!

Etc. etc.

Practically every scene had some major departure from reality, which, in my opinion, makes a movie stupid. And a stupid movie is a bad movie.

However, since this particular group of actors are enjoyable and charismatic, and since it did have a pretty cool chase with a bunch of Minis, a car with which I am particularly obsessed, this movie gets a

C-

or

**** (4 Stars out of ten)

If Charlize had appeared nude in any scene (See Reindeer Games (another stupid movie) or The Cider House Rules (a decent movie)), I would have added one star automatically.

...well, actually, I guess he has. Bond movies have never been keen on "reality" but this movie just plain sucked. Plot holes wide by even Bond standards. Dialogue written by a high school wannabe action movie script writer. Action that was tepid at best.

Okay, so, like, Bond is running from the Ice Capades Police and he jumps into one of their sleek rocket ice sleds and shoots across the ice, right? They're in the Arctic, right? The friggin' ice fields of the Great North, land of the Vikings, Iceland, right? Where does he think he's going to go??? I mean, it's one thing to have him escape, but as Mr' Korean-nope-caucasian space deathray guy chases Bond with his fabulous death ray, what is Bond thinking in the first place? "Gotta out run the death ray. Then I'll be home free!" No! He's in the Arctic! Ther is *NOWHERE FOR HIM TO GO*!

Alright, and about that death ray. So where does one *get* a death ray, anyways? I mean, James Bond's enemies have them a *lot*. Take the one in this movie. It's kinda cool *looking* but (A) how was it launched? (B) Where was it built? (C) How was it funded? etc etc. etc. I realize the diamonds were supposed to be the source of income for this guy, but it all makes so little sense.

And that is the crux of the problem. The movie just makes so little sense. It is all set up for the next action scene. The ice-chase I mentioned in the first paragraph was just set up for the cartoonishly ridiculous parasurf stunt with Bond surfing on a piece of the ice skooter and a parachute over 100 foot waves. I mean, Pierce Brosnan is 50! He looks good, but he's still 50. I doubt a championship surfer at the peak of his talent and fitness could have pulled off that stunt but Bond does it without even getting wet.

And that's ANOTHER thing! (There are sooooo many). Here they are, in the friggin' Arctic, and the deathray guy's henchmen are all wearing parkas, or, at the very *least*, hats, and here comes James Bond wearing nothing but his formal attire. It's cold enough for an Ice Palace to exist! And he is wearing what amounts to a prom tux. Proms are held in the spring, people!

And those are just the plot holes (not that I've covered them all by any stretch). How about the production, the acting, the script? All awful, even by Bond standards. Halle Berry was a disappointment. Pierce actually wasn't too bad. The best, by far, was Rick Yune as the diamond-faced Zao. And he was only a supporting character.

Alright, enough already. Save yourself by not seeing this ridiculous movie.

...but it wasn't great, either. An okay, light-hearted, feel-good comedy. Had a little too much TV-sitcomishness about it, and the main character lady was a little too neurotic, and her husband was a little too suspicious in a TV sitcom sort of way. But all of that was just "a little" and overall it was fun to watch. Mind you -- we caught it on cable -- I wouldn't have wanted to rent it!

I give it a B-

I think if I was under the age of 10 or so, this film would appeal to me. It lacked the adult subtext that is present in many movies aimed at kids. Presumably, adult-oriented humor/themes/whatever is stuck in a movie to give the parents bringing their kids something to enjoy, but it also can help make a movie generally more watchable. 'Jimmy Neutron' had none of it.

That isn't to say, however, that it was terrible or anything. Just don't rent it unless you are playing it for kids.

I realize that maybe this movie broke new ground. I realize that it was made before all of the "typical" 70's (or 80's or whenever) cop movies, and that (i guess) it opened doors and whatnot. Still, that doesn't keep me from thinking the movie sucked.

Slow-paced. Ridiculous continuity holes. Mediocre car chases (that don't really involve cars, just one car). Gene Hackman was good. Roy Scheider was good. The rest of the movie wasn't. Like when they tore the car apart and finally found the heroin in the rocker panels, put the car back together and it was as good as new. Better than new. They never even

And it's not that I don't like old movies. There are plenty of movies taht I think are great. Movies made around the same time as Connection, like Godfather, A Clockwork Orange, Deliverance. (Actually, I didn't think Deliverance was that great).

Allright, I'm rambling. But I can't imagine why this movie won any Academy Awards or appears on IMDB's best of the 1970's list or anything like that.

Someone, please illuminate this matter for me!

here's my two cents.

I've read all the books. This movie was very faithful in its depiction, but in shortening it for film (and it was already long at 2hr20min) they cut out some of the charm that made the books so endearing: development of supporting characters, little diversionary snippets of storyline, etc. For example, even a character like Neville Longbottom was fully developed in the book -- in the movie he was a mere shadow of his book self. Same applies to Malfoy and his croonies (who are barely mentioned), many of the professors, and some of the Weasley family, to name a few. I liked that Rowling worked so hard to make *everyone* and *everything* have a life of its own!

As far as the movie goes, though, the casting was dead on, pacing was good, special effects were great, and acting was good to real good.

Really, not that bad. I generally don't like Costner, and had heard the worst on 'The Postman.' However, although there was a lot of hokey, contrived nonsense and overblown, overplayed, overly drawn-out dramatic scenes, the movie was mostly enjoyable. It was _way_ too long, however. Much better than 'Waterworld', which was positively one of the worst movies I've ever seen, next to 'Conan the Destroyer'.

Anyways, if you like Costner, you'll love this movie (but of course you've probably seen it by now). If you don't like costner, watch this movie if someone else pays for the rental. 6.5/10

I'm not one to be queasy or easily offended, so those aspects of this movie are not what I hated about it. I hated the fact that it simply was not a funny movie. It had one part where I almost snickered (Satan and Saddam), but at this point I was so fed up with this piece of crap that I couldn't even smile. And by the end, my wife and I were ready to tear our hair out if they sang on more stupid friggin song. SUCKED!