njumeil

Netlflix should try to stick to source material for once. Trying to make it like everything else out there - will never result in a great show. This animated travesty is no exception and it feels like it is a freebie you find in game DVDs. Nothing of substance can be found here, and I hope Sapkowski is not drinking himself to cirrhosis as it seems as if someone cursed "big screen" and every adaptation turns to gold from Grey mountains.

I am tired of adventure movies that are either: stupid and serious at the same time or very... "humorous" and to imaginative with over the top ideas and insane events happening all the time.

Jungle Cruise is gorgeous, believable as Indiana Jones movies and simple. Good thing they did not care about the sophistication of the plot, because we all know how it is going to start and how it is going to end. Just sit, relax and enjoy the cruise.

I have watched Friends more times than I can count, but I could not get over botox and insane amount of plastic jarring my brain from the screen. I can not ruin this legacy with this, so I have stopped watching it after 5 or so minutes.

Imagine that they would do that? I could not shake the bitterness of Cavils series failure watching this pretty low budget masterpiece. There will be no worthy adaptation to the big screen... Unless there is a Osiris spindle to make it happen?

Imagine if this movie had blockbuster budget. I bet your version would differ from mine, but Hollywood would have Scarlet playing unbelievable soldier from Russia making the world a better place. What we have here is Olga playing brilliantly, looking almost believable as a soldier and trough her inner nightmares shining some light on this bleak immoral world. It is slow, but slow is smooth. I liked this film. I liked it a lot. There are no higher than life concepts, but why would we want another picture about cogs fighting in a world of global geopolitics. We want people doing it for other people and for themselves. In this essence A Sentinela is a brilliant 80-ies flick about family and revenge, but with grit and script of 21st century. Do not be rational about it, if you choose to watch it, just enjoy a the performance of someone doing what they think is right in their worldview.

It seems there are two genres mixed into one by two groups of writers. First one is trying to make lead character look as inconsistent and absurd as possible: motivations shift left to right, logic fails this man, he has no power or morals, but he is a beyond hero level fighter somehow. You will never know what he will do, because his actions have no meaning.

Second group of writers is trying to offset that mexican soap writing style and creates colourful and sympathetic characters that you root for. They have clear goals and motivations, they are likeable and you want them succeed.

Uhtred is the worst part of this show. And yes, King Alfred is sometimes written by the first group of morons as well.

I am not American and I can not possibly understand racism as well as an American would, so to me it is another good series about one half of people hating other half on some ideas. I like characters, rorschach mask wearing terrorists look intimidating and police with masked officers look real and capable.

Regina King (Night Sister) kicks ass. That is one of the best female action hero portrayals ever. I am not sure about supporting cast though. Night Sisters husband looks fake and that rorschachian looking dude with shiny face has to convince me to like him too.

Cinematography is good and you will be blown away by some shot transitions too. Production value and long term survivability of this show is also evident. It will be hard to keep this level of quality up for a long time. Lets hope if will be worth our time.

As a fan of the movie, I will say that this is definitively watchmen, but not the ones from 80-ies chasing nuclear war threat. These are modern ones, the ones that we will or are supposed to care about. Watch the Watchmen.

It was 2019 April and Avengers Endgame has topped Avatar for all time box office earnings. Some wedding photographer was shocked by that; as who would expect that another horrible movie was so successful. Again!

He contacted his buddy writer from SNL to write a horror script, but since there is no budget it had to be comedy, so... you know one could say "what can you do on low budget? give them a break!". How did they deal with this? They contracted Ann Coulter to write jokes for the movie. And they have added a subtle changes later, by making it a political-social commentary (Ann's jokes were too dark I guess).

The process took a long two months but they were done by July or so. It was super fast and the team was excited, because they were on time for July 4th - the time when all summer blockbusters come out!

I guess director is passionate about her movie (at least thats what it says in other reviews that were written by friends), but really does not love movies nor knows anything about: film logic, continuity, dialogue direction, geometry of space or character development in general. Altho I must say that SFX guys and gals did a good job making those guts look real. On the other hand - illusionists that made all these repeated "endless colourful strings that come out of my mouth" tricks were not so inventive.

BTW: gay actors playing macho/alfa straight guys should really take some lessons from Tom Cruise or Neil P. Harris. His scenes were so funny to watch :D

Don't waste your life people. Go watch something like "The Field Guide to Evil" which deserves to be seen by more people, but not this satanic shlock.

What is wrong with people giving such a low scores to this movie? It is lighthearted, it is genuinely funny some times. It does not take itself too serious and it is enjoyable to watch. Few comedies are like this and it deserves more than this measly 5.6 score. Dont even get me started on critics. Watch it if you have not - you will enjoy it. And what about Bob, uh? ;)

This movie plays on both - Christians and Atheists, but it has to be noted, that title says "God who wasn't there". Even if it has Jesus on it's cover title alone is a marketing stunt. Since it's made for western, hence Christian, audience it's shock value can only be illustrated by the same clips from "Passion of the Christ". You call things the way they appear, right? At least "Zeitgeist" was not pretending it's something else. Why don't you talk about Islam, Hindu etc? Answer is simple - audience is not there. So what does this movie gives us? Shock value alone.

I really don't like people who take advantage of atheism-religion controversy for their own personal agenda and exploit. Be it bad cinematography or pure ignorance on the impact the movie is making. If you want a real discussion - make a real documentary on religion. Do not tease. Educate.

This movie is not about time travel. It is about the present and the past. There is no present without the past. If you forget, destroy your past in your heart - you and your nation have no future. Cherep (Skull) is a modern radical nationalist in the modern Russia. The other three guys represent other parts of Russian society: student, that gave up on studies for some quick buck, rapper-anti-fa and fourth one - "golden boy". Lost generation, but with a hope.

Their world is going to turn upside down. They all get into the past, to the middle of WWII, where they grandfathers fight with Hitler's Germany. Lessons are to be learned for a present and for the future to be saved.

Imagine someone who gives his life for the his motherland to be told: "In the XXI century, men, dressed in black, will walk on the streets of Moscow and shout "Heil Hitler." If you don't get it, switch "Moscow" to "New York" or the city you live in, and you will understand.

There is a promise, I can tell you that.

As with all good series: a glimpse, trough a peephole, a flash of something beautiful, something scary, something fascinating. But maybe it's just our imagination painting monalisas, where postcard is due? You can't tell for sure, but one can always speculate.

Eddie Falco - who can forget Carm Soprano? - is in the lead, as a nurse Jackie and that is a promise of a good (if not stellar) acting. Paul Schultz (unsympathetic priest from The Sopranos) plays her lover Eddie (haha - someone got their fantasies realized? :). Dominic Fumusa (another one from Sopranos cast) plays Jackie's husband. Charismatic Haaz Sleiman (we've met him in "The Visitor") adds some calm to the mix as the philosophically gifted male-nurse.

In the pilot we won't see anything out this world. Love triangles, compassion and indifference of medical staff, jokes (some are actually funny!), hospital drama etc. Nothing that we could not participate in other shows, but there is this third ingredient to this sweet 'n sour dish. Something that you can't figure out from the first bite and you need take another one. Question is: will we like the aftertaste?

It just wants to impress, amaze and woo us from the start. It fails, since this approach is so last century. I want character development, colors, emotions. I don't want to rush into stereotypes: "cool boss" + "powerful female colleague"; two sexy interns, fresh from actors school in LA; hospital director that looks like a captain from some hardboiled cop show, but not someone with a medical background. Mental cases are interesting stuff to explore, but it fails here also, since it emphasizes on human relations, rather than subject of psychiatry itself.

Camera work is so bad it pains me to look at those Mexican soap opera style close-ups. Sound falls even shorter.

And yes, where are the writers of this show? My bet is, that it will end with this one pilot.

Let me get this straight: this is the very best TV can produce right now. It's not that stellar as Sopranos for example, but only because it's street gang movie. It can not be that stylish nor does it have the magnitude Sopranos had... because it's street gang movie.

Acting is good. It's an easy judge: IF you believe the character - it's OK, right? The plot is thick as hell. And this, I guess, was the problem it burned in one season. There is too much action in every single episode. People behind Donnellys were too eager to show and tell. They never took time to chill, to develop characters to the full. There are no everyday routines and those bits of our own lives, that make us the people we are. That was THE reason that made Sopranos 10/10 show, that lasted 6 seasons. We connected to the characters as the housewives connect to the Mexican soap opera ones. We loved them for a reason and we hated some for a reason. This part is missing from TBD.

To sum it up: it's Irish mob series, gritty, bloody, violent and interesting. It's one season only, but if you like movies from the other side of the fence - it's for you, my friend. Just don't forget your whiskey.

First thing: this movie "based on the novel". BASED on the novel. So all those, that downrate it, because the movie does not follow beloved book, should start to learn separating one media from another.

There are no synthesized emotions in this. Everything feels real, or at least as real as the emotions in the diary of someone that is waiting for his days to end in concentration camp.

The main advantage of Puipa's masterpiece is this: There is no prejudice, no-goodie-white-hoodie and no evil-bad-wolf-hanibal-lector type characters. Everyone is show as a human. You will not feel sympathy for guards or collaborators, but you will understand things like "why do such people rise in times like this" or even start thinking about reasons that could turn good people into animals. Director won't tell you what to feel! It's such a rare feature, that it is hard to understand this concept at first.

There is some black humor in this movie too. It's dark, noir even, although it's so true, that it feels close even if you can't connect to WWII in any way.

Subtle details, real-life philosophy, humour, rich characters, absolutely stunning camera work makes this movie one of the best. It's not a fairy tale as Shindler's list is: you wont feel guilty if you are not crying in the end and everyone will understand why are you weeping if you do.

"Sly is old" - most common comment on "Why wont you watch the movie?". You know what? It does not matter as this is not oiled-skin-muscle-flex at local WWF booth.

The second I have finished watching trailer I knew I will love this movie. It already had this dramatic, sand-in-the-mouth, bloody-nose feeling. These was no dramatic pauses, no over-hyped narration, nothing like that. It was violent. Of course. It's an epilogue of the series that has "Blood" in it's name.

Rambo comes back as a broken man with nightmares about his past. He lives in a hut and is literary waiting for his life to end. There is no joy in his face. He is beaten, washed out. He had few decades to contemplate on his life and it's meaning. And believe me or not - Sly delivers that feeling! Missionaries approach him for an aid. He tries to refuse, but in the end gets convinced by a woman (Julie Benz). This is a point where one can skip or wonder about the reasons.

First of all: Rambo knows what's in Burma. He saw everything war is about. And Burma is the worst. It's genocide civil war. He knows that ideals mean nothing there and worst of all - those missionaries are probably going to die. Rambo does not want to any part in this as it would be kind of his fault too. He is only a human though, so when a woman (symbol of life cycle etc) asks him, he breaks and at least wants to have his conscience clear and agrees to help.

Rambo's instincts were right - missionaries get into the hands of Burmese army. Then the mercenaries are hired for their rescue and Rambo knows he will go into this mission with them.

Notice that during the movie he is referred to by his name John or as "boatman" or whatever. Stallone wants to distance his character from "super soldier" from the man Rambo was in the last two movies. This is Rambo's LAST mission. He does NOT care if he will die or not. He is no longer a hotshot. So no wonder he is not breaking teeth when he gets insulted by the leader of the mercenaries. It does not matter anymore! The rest of the movie is about violence and real(?) war. Rambo fights so ferociously as if his soul was already burning in hell for those 20 years after we last saw him in Afghanistan. As if his desperation, anger, sadness, guilt altogether explode on the screen. It's not pretty, it's not enjoyable and there is no easy way talking about it.

...but I have seen more horrific scenes already. The part in Saving Private Ryan where one soldier is pushing knife into another ones heart and asks to hush.. that one has been haunting me forever. What can be more terrifying than those dying soldiers eyes? "Rambo" is not however a movie that glorifies violence. If it would be so, then the violence would have been more cinematic and plastic and CGI and with a lot more fancy guns and explosions and ... and and. It's shown REAL. So you could NOT possibly enjoy it, because it's a movie with a message.

It's about failed politics, broken ideals and life's cruelty. It's about hypocrisy and silent rage. It's also about hope. Or at least whats left of it when you have seen it all...