jeffdstockton

Violence can be depicted realistically and in a reasonable context of the story. Wind River, the masterpiece by Sheridan, has such a scene - and yes, it's hard to watch. But, it fits perfectly into the film. The brutality in this episode (not quite a rape of Beth), is gross (in every sense of the term), and it's based in stupid premises.

Beth is a high-powered threat to several enemies of her father and family, but she's working late in her office - where they know she works - with unlocked doors (ABSURD) and no security. She, who is no stranger to the violence of her family and their enemies, has no panic button, no weapon in her desk or hidden elsewhere in her office. There are common and typical security protocols for law offices and especially people in her kind of work and with her kind of power. None of that is in place for Yellowstone. Perhaps it was inconvenient for the simplistic brutality of the scene that the producers wanted to show. Even shows up with no protective vest, and he doesn't bother shooting the guy who's literally attacking Beth when he arrives.

The stupidity that flows through this shows bloodstream shows up frequently, and it's obvious that it does for production convenience. It's insulting to viewers, and should be insulting to the actors, writers, directors and everyone involved.

As said before, the series isn't getting better. It's stuck, and the writers and producers just keep digging deeper expanding the stupidity out wider as the hole gets deeper. Where the premise could've been mined for something unique, thoughtful, penetrating, surprising and, yes, even stunning, Sheridan and the rest have accepted low-scale mediocrity. What could have been great, based on Sheridan's pedigree and, in MANY cases, such a great cast, has fallen to common Hollywood ground.

Taylor Sheridan is credited as writer, but it's clear that Sheridan - if he still has the talent that delivered Wind River, Sicario and other earlier masterpieces - isn't directly involved in this absolutely critical element of the series. Sad.

Yellowstone, in this 2nd season, isn't getting better, which is what would have been expected - that it would have found its voice and direction. Unfortunately, it has less sense of direction, less sense of character. The narrative thread is getting thinner and frayed. Vingnettes in the episodes simply return to what we've seen before, with just a slightly different angle, adding nothing of substance. The show is becoming a collection of shallow melodramatic bits, as though viewers are expected to fill in the holes in whatever makes any semblance of sense to each individual viewer.

Sheridan, the writer, isn't doing enough to make Yellowstone rise to the level of excellence to which we KNOW he could rise. Not doing his best indicates a level of cynicism about his participation in mainstream Hollywood, and could even express some contempt for the viewers. Too bad.

Taylor Sheridan takes Wind River and fills it with Hollywood gases 'til it's just another predictable, easy to plot, typical soap opera that calls on the usual off-the-shelf paper-thin stock characters.

Yellowstone has little attachment to its setting & lifestyle, other than the cinematography and wardrobe. Subtlety is not welcome here. The beauty and excellence of Wind River is flushed away by the apparent need to have Costner's character utter a near endless stream of pithy little aphorisms. Compare his performance here with what he did in Open Range, and you'll see how shallow is the opportunity for him to bring his best.

This is not a great 'Western', any more than Field of Dreams is about baseball. Where Wind River portrayed its setting with honesty & accuracy, not hiding & not embellishing, Yellowstone seems addicted to exaggeration from the smallest look on someone's face to the largest political and family battles. Sheridan risks losing his greatest talent of finely hewing dialogue, and superb directing so that viewers can enter the settings of films, and forget that they're listening to written dialogue and watching a carefully planned and orchestrated work of art. He has been masterful in his other work. Not here.

Yellowstone offers nothing original, and plays too closely with stereotyped characters. Sheridan teases viewers early in the opening, with an outsider character (Kayce), seemingly close to Jeremy Renner's in Wind River. But, the fact that he has to TELL viewers through dialogue of some throw-away extras, rather than show us, is a perfect example of the sad differences - there are many - between his best and his slide into mediocrity.

As the series - even in the first season - continues, it actually gets worse: more trite, more clichéd, more stupid characters (the campaign 'genius' who is about as stupid as 5th-grader running for class president; Kayce, the endlessly self-destructive brat with no redeeming qualities; Kelly Reilly's character, the daughter Dutton, who is the most unlikeable and the most obvious). In the opening of the 2nd season, they even bring in the old cowboy sage who is a bottomless font of Hallmark channel wisdom.

It's a shame. I wanted to like this, especially after being profoundly impressed by the subtlety and raw honesty of Wind River. But, no, Sheridan is cashing big checks, here, by delivering typical Hollywood trash. And, obviously, a lot of people have been initially entranced. We'll see if it holds up. I suspect Sheridan will get a lot more opportunity to produce and write this level of 'hit', but it's going to be at the expense of the truly high-quality work he did before this.

By this episode in the series, Yellowstone is running (has run) out of steam. It lacks the subtlety of Taylor Sheridan's best work (eg. Wind River), and been subsumed by the worst, most typical of Hollywood off-the-shelf soap opera trash. This episode is almost entirely dependent on every tired cliché that has populated these plug-n-play shows for decades.

It's a shame. There is some real talent here, and I saw Sheridan reaching for something special initially. But, even in the first episode, he had to have throw-away characters TELL us about Kayce's special talents (which, of course, are never really backed up in what we see).

Sheridan's special talent has been to minimize dialogue, and to build incredible and realistic tension. Contrary to earlier - including fairly recent - work, Yellowstone is rife with overacting (which we have to attribute to the Director), hammy, melodramatic dialogue (with rare exception, eg Ryan Bingham's character), and an endless parade of stupid characters and stupid behaviors. (Case in point: the campaign 'genius' for the wannabe Attorney General doesn't vet an unknown woman in the campaign offices who has been asking a lot of questions. An internet search, at the woman's suggestion, shows her to be a well-known reporter. Gosh, who could've seen that coming?)

Kelly Reilly's character (and over-acting) is an endless source of annoyance and frustration. The Kayce character is, similarly, endlessly self-destructive, with an attempted stoicism that is paper-thin and rendered profoundly phony by the actor.

Jeezuz, I had high hopes for this series. It is a huge disappointment.

Although Yellowstone is largely just another typical Hollywood soap opera, dressed up in Western garb, and Taylor Sheridan's best work resides elsewhere, sometimes what he does best rises through to the top. The scene with Kelly Reilly and Ryan Bingham is one example.

The writing is sparse; only what's necessary. Bingham's performance has s stunning beauty because of its understatement. Kelly Reilly almost blows it with her aggressive acting - not just the character, but her portrayal. But, these few moments - quiet elegant and simple - hint at what Yellowstone could have been; maybe could still be.

I hoped for an enjoyable, insightful film about an inherently interesting story, but I found myself just wanting this thing to 'get there'. Hopkins is hamstring by poor writing and poor directorial vision. His character is buffing who stumbles and blunders from one little vignette to another. The film seems to be afraid to aspire to inspiring or anything greater than a string of brief jokes told in no particular order.

There's a story here, somewhere, but the writer/ director barely imposed order (other than a simple chronology), and shows no development of any of the characters.

The bulk of the movie is comprised of extremely short bits, like an amateur comic at an open mic night. Bit after bit just shows a self-centered, basically harmless twit.

Viewers could play a drinking games for every time Hopkins says, "What?" It becomes an incredible annoyance! Perhaps the writer thought it would show his simple, naive 'charm', but it doesn't. It emphasizes what is most irritating about his cluelessness.

We're supposed to believe that a few dozen people fing this clown compelling enough to extend their generosity in time and treasure to help a guy who didn't prepare, who didn't take some most care, pay basic attention toward achieving his lifelong goal.

Ultimately, Hopkins' character is a user, mildly sociopathic.

If it wasn't Hopkins in the lead, this movie would never have gotten any notice.

He's not "the most determined man I've ever seen in my life". He's obsessively selfish, and if there's a story about Burt Munro somewhere, I doubt this does it justice.

Absolutely nothing nothing new, here, and nothing interesting. Just typical Brit soap opera crap, in a police setting so they can use shaky hand-held cameras sometimes, and hyper dramatic quick cuts, accompanied by somebody's idea of in-touch modern music.

So sick of this kind of tripe being rolled out from the Brit TV industry. This is straight off the generic shelf, built by committee, pushed by producers. Bleahhh.

OK, IMDB needs more characters, instead accepting a straightforward review.

A 3rd-grade student could make this typical Brit TV garbage. It's London Kills, The Tower, and countless other generic melodramas that use a cop setting to develop the hyperbolic layer. These crap shows have little concern for actual police procedure, and certainly no concern for depicting reality. Everyone would be better off if the idiots who push for this kind of garbage would switch over to full-on fantasy.

An amazing series, their episode continues and builds the intensity and complications. All aspects of the series are generally amazing.

The lead, a 'good guy', is getting deeper and deeper into a frightening spiral from which it is harder and harder to see a way out.

In this episode, he finds himself - willingly? - VERY deeply, personally involved.

The disappointment, here, is the reason that he becomes fully enmeshed in the spider's web. Seconds from getting away, he somehow, uncharacteristically, accidentally flips a switch on the sound system.

This leads to a fight, which leads to our hero's quick-witted solution to several problems. It's a nice portrayal of his particular skill set which makes him valuable to the people he's in league with, and compelling to viewers. But, his error IS so glaringly inconsistent, it just hits with a thud.

The payoff of the episodes does work, though.

Pretty good... Odd to start with a few minutes of supposed off-season comments and clips. It's a lame attempt to show F1 drivers' lives away from F1. Next time, don't bother.

Narrative focus is okay, if obviously contrived to push melodrama. There's little exposition on F1 at large, while focusing on one team, which disproportionately elevates them. But, hey, that's this series, and as long as expectations are aligned, it's okay.

The addition of Danica Patrick was a bad move to try to connect with US viewership. She's bad at the job, and she's useless here. There's a very large US market that eagerly awaits her departure.

I think DTS has it's episode formula firmly in place, and regular viewers will see what the expect, with no real surprises. The series is much more designed for new viewers, and for people who don't watch F1 regularly through the season. It's certainly not designed for rabid consumers of F1 media (which is surely the worst kind of rumor mongering out there).

I suspect that this is one of the episodes in Sorkin was credited more than he actually contributed. This appears much more melodramatic - more soap-opera trips than well-crafted dialogue - than earlier episodes. Where our breath was often taken, our minds were engaged in surprising ways, this episode 1) rehashes earlier material - is almost entirely dependent on dialogue and storylines from previous seasons - and 2) lacks the verbal and structural sophistication of episodes in which Dorkin had full control.

We've already seen the effects of network pressure, and evidence of the conflict between the brilliance of the Sorkin, Wells and Schlamme creative synergy and Network meddling. Apparently, executives wanted to take more credit for the show's phenomenal success & impact, and likely wanted to appease Republican sensitivities and claims that 'their' network was too liberal.

A viewer doesn't have to be especially astute to see the decline in quality that this episode is now showing is underway, as Sorkin is getting close to the Exit door.

The longer it goes, the harder to watch it becomes. How many times does Harvard get mentioned? The Ryan character is an embarrasing paper thin duplication & compilation of throw-away comments & actions in earlier episodes.

So much of this has the look, feel and sound of minimum wage hacks hired to write-by-committee an episode that the Network assumed viewers wouldn't notice. 'Subtle' and 'nuance' are nowhere close to this episode. Even the music and camera work are heavy-handed. This episode doesn't ask anything of viewers, it doesn't engage viewers the way we were previously accustomed.

Another absurdity is how capable Bartlett continues to show himself to be, yet the contrivance is that stepping aside during the personal crisis is so powerful and patriotic. The administration - it's agenda for the country and, to the extent possible, the world - are at increasing risk every day that passes. Bartlett functions just fine in the residence; he wanders the halls of the West Wing, but, yeah, sure, held incapacitated for the role of President.

Also absurd: the President (Bartlett) and First Lady are brought be helicopter to the crime scene to see Zoey in the back of an ambulance, where what is depicted is obviously unresearched for accuracy. Bad writing. Bad directing, bad producing.

Everything about this story arc belies the artifice of Bartlett stepping away from the Presidency. A President appoints top-tier people (theoretically) to advise and support. Bartlett was never shown to be incapable.

This episode is over-the-top with the religious subtext, too. It's been understood and established that Bartlett is Catholic. But, it's so heavy in this episode, as though producers assumed these sentiments are commonly held by the audience. It's also there as more of the over-done melodrama.

As has happened with several of the guest actors on The West Wing, Michael O'Keefe seems to trying to hard to make an impression. Instead of losing himSELF in the role, he sounds and appears to be ACTING the role. Apparently, Sorkin's writing leads some actors to deliver their dialogue with a sing-song cadence ant intonation. This disrupts their scenes, and interrupts the flow of the narrative - not greatly, but unnecessarily. It belies an eagerness to impress and fit in to this great ensemble.

Felicity Huffman was another egregious performer in this way, and we can note that, though her character had significant opportunity for return visits, she didn't reappear. Evan Handler was probate worst. Connie Britton is given disproportionate opportunity to get it right, and though she never does, her 'cutie pie' quirks and mannerisms apparently took longer to grate the nerves of decision-makers.

Maybe somebody has done a research project on the various guest appearances, and the outcomes of their performances... seems like there's something there to dig into.

O'Keefe's appearance seems a bit contrived, built for him rather as an organic piece of the narrative. The appearance of the character isn't necessarily a clinker, but O'Keefe's poor delivery elevates the oddness to an annoyingly noticeable level.

Tim Matheson gives one of his many outstanding performances in this episode, and it's always a pleasure to be reminded of his his tremendous talent in being able to embody a character, to make it his own, so to speak - and to make it realistic while being powerful. His is a role that could have been, like many of the characters in this amazing series, reduced to easy stereotypes and cliches. Matheson is a master - an expert, and amazing talent, here. To deliver with this strength and nuance and subtlety, despite appearing less frequently than other core characters, is - or should be - award-worthy.

Good complex stories intertwined masterfully by Sorkin, directed with usual greatness, and acted perfectly EXCEPT for Felicity Huffman. Ms Huffman has a relatively limited career on TV, and we see why. She seems stuck in 'stage' mode - acting for theatre audiences. Sorkin probably likes her, inasmuch as she was a lead in Sportnight, which was Sorkin's entreé into TV years earlier. Sportsnight was ahead of its time in several ways - it was remarkable, driven by powerful, breathtaking dialogue.

Sorkin's dialogue here in The West Wing is, of course, stunning and even more refined and subtle. Huffman's acting, however, is, as usual, just Huffman acting. She delivers her lines in a way that shows how much she prepared to deliver them. Everything is thoroughly practiced and delivered with stilted deliberation. She seems to have overlooked that her lines are part of conversations, not monologues. She doesn't have the sense of pace, and certainly lacks an ability to seem as though she is actually listening and this participating in a conversation.

She also seems excited to be 'here' - on The West Wing! It's like an electrical energy flowing beneath her words and smirks. And, it's distracting. She seems like an over-excited cast wannabe. I'm glad this is her only appearance.

In the FIRST episode, the one key piece of evidence that could prove the widow's suspicion is simply dismissed by the police. And even the wife, who was assaulted the baby sitter with pepper spray - leaving tangible evidence - even seems to put the shocking evidence on the nanny cam memory card on a back burner. This alonSo, the nanny assaults the widow AND steal the memory card, hides and runs from the widow, but, hey, the police don't take it seriously.

It's incredibly lame, and crucial for Mon I g the story forward. Viewers see the nanny cam video, but police aren't interested, so that line of the story just gets dragged out, deeply frustratingly.

This is not the only glitch, but it's so important. This series is not worth your time. It is being hyped hard by Netflix, but I expect ratings to decline as more viewers try to watch it.

Typical problem, here, despite being based on Tom Clancy book. Clancy has the reputation for doing deep research and being surprisingly accurate. Even in episode 1 of season 1, we see errors just line up.... in addition to completely predictable, off-the-shelf Hollywood writing. Nothing original, nothing particularly interesting, standard characters (including Ryan). Characters are paper thin, action is standard fare, and US soldiers are portrayed making profoundly stupid mistakes - Middle East desert compound security is made to look like kids playing Army. A vehicle comes toward the compound unexpectedly, driving fast: two guards quip sarcastically; no weapons pointing at the truck. It stops. Guards yell order to - ready?- 'Close the gate!' So,the gate to this US compound was just standing open?!!? Driver gets out, gets shot. Nobody yells about possibility of bomb. Of course, the truck blows up. Other trucks suddenly appear. The obligatory chaotic gunfight erupts, with US apparently inadequatly armed, despite being in what they know is hostile territory. Then, gee, golly - some bad guys somehow start shooting - including a bazooka - from INSIDE the compound. One bad guy had been laid out in the morgue! So, no US personnel confirmed that the bodies brough in for pay by an in-country native, are, in fact, dead. They just trusted the guy who is, you know, not exactly a friend of the US.

The fight just looks like it was written by people who had no sense of battle, no idea what the compound would entail, no sense of actual security and procedure.

Sorry, but Krasinski, though probably doing exactly what the producers and director want, is just not believable as the hero with superior physical and intellectual skills & capacities. And, his boss could not be more of a stereotyped egotistic arrogant blowhard buffoon boss.... Again, this is not from Tom Clancy (writing, directing, etc); it's just more B-grade Hollywood. Too bad.

Yet another example of police/ FBI/ CIA/ White House etc procedural in which no one associated with show bothered to do any research. The lead actor tries, but everything about this is just grade-school level tripe. I cannot understand the high ratings and praise in the reviews.

There are just too many procedurals AND documentaries to put this kind of careless, lazy garbage out there, especially additional seasons. But, hey, the market of viewers seems to want this crap, and Netflix is facilitating a lot contracts for junior writers and directors, apparently, with this series.

Good for them, but if you've got a brain that you're not willing to turn off, don't waste your time with this.

First watching this in early January 2024, and quickly wondering where all the great ratings are coming from. I was hoping it would be as advertised, but it is shockingly slow, relative to the hype about 'exciting'. I also hoped for a good procedural, but there is NOTHING authentic here - nothing smart, nothing original.

The characters - every one of 'em, 'good guys' or 'bad guys' - are stupid. The initial heist was, supposedly, planned for a long time by some 'professor' smart guy criminal. But, nothing about its execution suggests anything smart, much less brilliant or unique.

The response by the police to a robbery at the Royal Mint of Spain is - ready? - a couple guys in a subcompact. AND, they're enough to scare oof the horde of bad guys who are loaded up with automatic weapons. WTF?!? And, somehow, this idiot bank robbing crew gets stuck in the bank for over 8 hours!! And, apparently it's not enough to trigger much of a response from any level of police authority for quite some time. This is not just incredible, it's stupid. And it's insulting to viewers.

Also, I don't know who the writers, producers or director may have wanted viewers to care about, but no character here is engaging, none are intersting, much less sympathetic. Who cares?!?

This is just another soap opera dressed up as wannabe action movie/ series. Huge disappointment. And, a waste of time.

I like much of the work of the writer/ director. Because of that, and based on SO MANY strong articles, reviews & awards, I expected to more than just like this. But, I don't like it. Where Frank is known for dialogue, there is NOTHING interesting about the dialogue. And, the story never really comes to a point; it's just small events that just happen as the lead character, Beth, moves through her life. And, I mean 'moves through her life': she doesn't really make choices with an objective. She has no compass; the story has no compass. She is just barely more than a caricature. None of the characters catch the attention, so none holds the attention. Ultimately, the series is a boring slog.

This series is surprisingly flat. The writing offers little opportunity for the actors to do much, so I don't understand the praise for the acting.

It is also another example of Netflix developing a 7-episode series that could have been a movie or, at most, a 3-episode series.

I'm not sure why this was such a hit, but I suspect that newer reviews will be less glowing, less enamored.

The story maybe could've been interesting, but the acting and writing make this such a disappointment for Coban material, and a long slog to watch. Adrian Greensmith is profoundly bad, extremely annoying, epitomizes the worst of YA 'acting'. The actress who plays Rachel (Sage Linder) actually has some skill, and offers hope that a small percentage of these dreadful wannabe actors might move on to more challenging adult roles.

There's too much going on here; maybe that's the YA formula, I don't know. But, the percentage of material that is relevant is in the minority of what you have to sit through. We're supposed to think there's urgency, but these kids get distracted and diverge from the work that otherwise so urgently must be done.

Finally: I just cannot stand Adrian Greensmith. Given the general absence of acting talent, here (with one likely exception of Sage Linder), it says a lot this this guy is so standout bad. Most people would have to TRY to be this bad.

Also, the writers & directors are not your friends. They really didn't try, here. This is just 'check the box' throwaway trash, fulfilling contracts, I suppose. Ugh....

Baffled by the reviews here! This is a self-indulgent, unoriginal, poke in the eye, middle finger to the viewers piece of shallow trash.

There are no interesting characters, no interesting events, no moments of insight, nothing whatsoever to make it worth one's time to watch this drivel.

It is derivative of several other more original and thoughtful films & stories. There is almost no story here, actually. It is just little scenes of shallowness, one after the other. There are no surprises. The reveal at the end is completely devoid of surprise. The writer director seems to go for pruerient, lame attempts to shock, but nothing - NOTHING - is unexpected, nothing is surprising.

And, there are no sympathetic characters at all. That can be OK on a well made - well written & well directed - film. But, this is not that film.

This is shallow, ugly in spirit (because the writer/ director is deliberate in her meanness, callowness, shallowness and crude manipulation of viewers' generosity in given her (the director) their time and a level of confidence that they will be rewarded for watching.

This is an absolute paper-thin crap movie, pretending to a higher-brow film. It's garbage. It will be deservedly tossed on the trash heap over time - not too long in it's run.

I was pleasantly surprised that that this is NOT another true story of the vile greed ethic of Stanford & Silicon Valley. What the documentary shows is a well-paced and fair, straightforward depiction of what became competing interests around Juul. The product did - does - what the founders wanted it to do: provide an alternative to get people away the known toxic issues of burning tobacco and inhaling the smoke.

It was a startup, and they chose (handed off responsibility for) a marketing campaign that was 'successful' for the marketing guys, but off-message for the company. But, because of the success of Juul in the new industry of vaping (non-conbustion delivery of nicotine), the company had a target on its back.

The founders needed help for managing a company of this size and trajectory. Again, a good Board would have - should have - helped in this, but they were more focused on quick return for their investment.

This is a great story, told well, about political opportunists (San Fran AG, several States'AGs, FDA, Congress) and shallow mainstream media that prefers the hit pieces instead of facts and analyses is the truth that was only a little more complicated to tell. Juul gets painted with blame for illegal activity & consequences of other parties, but media & politics didn't want to give up the momentum of the false narrative that kept people's attention.

This is well done, which is not a surprise. This is not a story of bad guys greedily doing nefarious things to join the three comma club. They actually succeeded in helping millions of adults quit cigarettes.

While other dramatizations of the opiod crisis and evils of the Dackler family & Purdue Pharma, this one still suffers the typical sophomoric writing, directing and, in many cases, the acting. Michael Keaton stands out, as usual, as far superior to the material. Peter Sarsgaard is similarly a step or two above.

Unfortunately, this series, as so many do, feels like a rushed-to-order production, written by 2nd-tier writers pulling standard drivel off the shelves. Again, this one is slightly better than other attempts to capitalize - Hollywood-ize - the opiod crisis, but it is what it is: a melodrama. The best way to get this information - this story - is through documentaries (HBO, Frontline).

It is painful & annoying to see the broad scale of poor acting & directing, and watch actors sleepwalk through their lines. There is a plethora of bad online acting tutorials of how to display emotions, authority, seriousness, good ol' boy humor; how to talk with a 'country accent', etc etc. With rare and welcome exception, there is no variance in pacing, no real conversations; lots of raised eyebrows and smirking arrogance.

This show is condescending to the people who were victimized. The writers & producers obviously never bothered to visit the area, or even watch the documentaries that did take them seriously and respectfully.

There's a difference between simplifying complex truths and presenting a simplistic version for the purpose of entertainment and short-term gain through viewer ratings to generate ad revenue.

Best thing about this is that it could be worse.

Another production clearly seeking to capitalize on nostalgia for a particular time, appealing to a large & wealthy demographic. None of this is inherently a problem or complaint.

The execution belies a tight production schedule to just get this movie out there. Acting, writing and directing are all just slightly better than 'going through the motions' or checking the box. The young sales person/ assistant/ college intern is the most egregious: like a cartoon, no sense of pacing, no sense that characters listen to each other. The acting is painfully obvious as ACTING - saying the lines, showing the assigned emotion, etc.

It's likely that some - not all - of the cast could be better, but no one asked them to be, here.

Maybe the story could be interesting enough.... It's hard to say, from watching this. Unfortunately, it seems that all the competition among streaming providers is lowering the bar for quality, and driving production more for for quantity. So, viewer costs go up because production costs for content are the same for poor quality as it is for better quality.

Keanu Reeves does an outstanding job putting this together - research, obtaining video, interviewing so many of the people involved - showing that he has as GENUINE interest in F1 and this specific story about Brawn GP.

There's a perfect blending of technical information and the people involved - the human element. The pace, the combination of present-day and video of the time to present the story, is excellent! The makers recognized that there was no need to add or contrive drama.

Brawn is accessible and enjoyable, irrespective of prior exposure to F1, but, for the F1 fan, it's a real joy. It's great to see an F1 documentary that is this respectful of the people - and the viewer - and has the integrity to not embellish.

Found this recently (late 2023), and I'm surprised this didn't have wider exposure. It's a VERY rare example of every element of a film being perfect throughout. There is no sense of acting, dialogue or directing intruding into the experience of being with these characters in this beautiful place, in this bleak circumstance. This a masterpiece from Taylor Sheridan. It's hard to imagine how every actor performs flawlessly, irrespective of his or her role. The visual compositions perfectly fit the narrative - nothing jarring or contrived, or out of step with the story - nothing there just to be noticed.

Wind River keeps giving with every viewing. The acting and writing continue to deliver details and nuance that impress more deeply every time.

This film is a treasure. Taylor Sheridan is a treasure who is not yet fully appreciated, and,we hope, not yet having reached his peak. We look forward to what he continues to offer.

I tried to watch this series went it premiered, and quickly found that it suffered the same mortal flaw as Studio 60: excess Sorkin + desperate acting.

Sorkin is certainly better than most writers - no argument there - and he's a great thinker and brave creator. He's intelligent, and doesn't condescend to viewers. However, he can, as is a risk that comes with writing, spend too much time in his own head. So, the dialogue becomes oppressive and the style repetitive from character to character, and series to series.

It was this series which laid bare the liabilities of studio execs deciding to try to replicate the success of (early years) The West Wing. Sorkin was able to get too much control, rather than collaborating with directors who knew how to control the tiger by pulling on its tail. It seems evident that directors were either afraid of or prohibited from reining in Sorkin, or they were just thinking how great it will look on their résumés to show that they worked with him.

With little exception, the cast is built on a foundation of wannabes. Most of the acting is reminiscent of when West Wing tried the failed experiment of bringing in Bruno's team of political consultants to 'help' the Bartlett campaign run for a 2nd term. Fortunately for TWW, that weird effort was quickly abandoned. But that handful of actors were uniformly bad, Evan Handler particularly so: painfully obvious in how they were TRYING to act Sorkin-style. Just as those actors did back then, most of the cast here wear their desperation - "Gee! This is my big chance!" - like rhinestone covered jumpsuits. "See me! See me!" It's pervasive and nauseating, and ultimately frustrating and deeply disappointing.

Now, many years later, taking another look - even with the grace & understanding that times have changed a bit - Newsroom is as impossible to stomach now as it was originally.

I'm happy that Jeff Daniels survived the series. I suspect industry professionals recognized the depth & breadth of his skills at navigating this project. No one else - NO ONE - is memorable, for good reasons. I don't think any particular actor was especially bad; I think all the rest (other than Daniels) were uniformly over-wrought in their attempts. The cast, as a whole (with rare exception), was memorable only for being unlikeable, boorish, sophomoric and uninteresting.

That could have been a function of Sorkin seeing characters as undiferentiated commodities: plug-n-play platforms for delivering his dialogue.

The ratings here seem to be mostly 1st impressions, and not considered over several episodes, much less in context of how much better TV was becoming. Ironically, it was pushed to get by, in sizable part, because of what Sorkin and the directors did with The West Wing. The mistake, made by clueless network execs of course, was to turn Sorkin loose.