chet19

I won't repeat what others have said, but the criticisms are oh so true. The main character is absolutely despicable, Lacking common sense, etiquette, and morals. When you're taken prisoner, for example, is it better to be a loudmouth rabble rouser, or just quietly assess the situation and figure out what's going on. He chose to be the loudmouth. People getting beheaded left and right for minor offenses, but they let this Englishman live? Ridiculous writing. The writers have him say the F word constantly, which makes teenagers watching this giggle, But it ruins it for a more discerning audience. The Portuguese Catholics and the Japanese lords have a successful trade agreement going on, and this one anti-catholic vulgar charlatan is going to change their minds overnight? The hip young women writers on this show made me give up after three episodes and go rewatch the Richard Chamberlain superior version.

So right off the bat, whenever a movie involves someone in the pharma industry, you know they will end up being the main bad guy. It's just a lazy thing for writers to do nowadays, and it leads to unoriginal and predictable stories. So, yeah, the big bad company is evil, but not these others: A cold-blooded murderer who shoots a man pointblank receives heartwarming assistance from the cops. Oh, and she's a war criminal as well. A tattle-tale hacker who takes down the entire computer network of the police force? He's a misunderstood hero. The cop who breaks every rule in the book and is dishonest with everyone in his life? Oh, he's just a nice loveable guy. The ungrateful sister who turned her back on her employer? Just an innocent victim. The in-law who shows up at an innocent man's apartment and punches him in the face? Look the other way, it was a little mistake Murderers and hackers are totally acceptable in this town...but don't you dare manufacture medicine!!

After two incredible seasons reuniting the casts of the next generation and Voyager etc., I have no idea why the Showrunners decided to introduce Jack crusher. I wouldn't mind if he were a cool new character with some unique skims. Instead however, he's a cliché who doesn't follow the rules. You know, a rebel who does his own thing like a million other Hollywood cliché characters. He gets annoying right away, but it gets worse as he begins to have an identity crisis and starts whining about not knowing who he is. All the joy of seeing worff and data and Jordi Laforge again, is erased when we have to watch whining ingrate Jack crusher. At least the villain was really cool in Amanda Plummer.

Several times (laughably) they kept saying that England was the nearest port. Can't seek help in Greece or Italy or France or Spain. Nope, we must keep sailing with a monster on board. Lol. Also the music was way too loud in this while the cast whispered. Horrible sound mix. Like when the little boy Toby was showing where they keep the chickens, did we need Lou's music during a routine conversation? Also the vampire lore was uneven. Daylight kills them but people holding crucifixes are fair game? It was all over the place. Too many bad parts of an otherwise decent film. But the worst was their navigation.

So many movies have this same exact premise. A somewhat-conservative couple on vacation encounters a far-more outgoing couple who want to hang out and take them to some off-limits location. As ALWAYS in these films, (again, see my headline about this is not original), one of the couple is really into the adventure, while the other one is rational and (rightfully) fearful. These off-limits adventures lead to committing crimes just for the hell of it. Husband starts to get obsessed with the debauched new lifestyle, while the wife gets mad at him. In the only original aspect of this film, the criminals get away with their crimes because they make wax/rubber clones of themselves, and the clones are the ones who get punished. But even that one original aspect of the film is ruined, because they don't explain how this is done! Some impoverished island in the middle of nowhere has the ability to create lookalikes, but no one else in the world has this technology. Silly silly.

The previews and the hype make it seem like they won the lotto regularly. They don't. Not even once. They simply take advantage of a loophole where the state pays you back from a pot of money dedicated to tickets who did NOT win. If you buy enough tickets, you're guaranteed to get a portion back, and then some.

I thought the whole movie would be how they use math and probability to predict the lotto numbers, but all they did was buy thousands and thousands of Quick Picks. Yes, they won millions and helped their neighbors simply by simply by purchasing a ton of quick picks, but (as the college students proved), all you needed to do was buy so many quick picks to guarantee yourself a profit..

Keanu is great, and it was cool to see him team up with Winston and Lawrence Fishbourne again. But the casting was real bad with a little guy like the clown from "It" being the main bad guy. Was anyone scared of this guy? Do you look at him and be terrified to face him in a gunfight? Nope! Plus...was he really THAT bad? All he was doing was enforcing the rules of the Table and the hitman organization. Winston let Wick escape in the previous film, and had to accept his punishment. Wick had broken the rules too, and the hunt for him was justified. It's not like Pennywise was after Wick and Winston for fun...no, he was just following the rules. Also, for future villains, if you are going to choose someone to fight on your behalf, don't pick a blind man. I give this a 10 for the action and for Winston and Wick's scenes, but it only gets a 6 because the "bad guy" wasn't bad at all. So I call it an 8.

I did not know the history of this man or his expeditions before hand. So I was curious to see what happened. Now I'm still curious. The writer/director chose to spend the first hour on his unsuccessful attempt up the mountain. Then 45 minutes of him promising his wife that he will never return to the mountain. And then 10 minutes of him returning anyway and making it to the top. And then, as a "oh by the way" moment that I almost missed because everyone skips past the end credits, they put a written blurb on the screen to tell you he died on the way down.

Not making it up. The most important scene in the film isn't even there. They just toss a sentence onto the screen to tell you.

Why is it that every single CIA/MI6/Moussad movie is the same? 1. An operative wants out. 2. Their handler tells them it's dangerous. 3. The agent refuses to do their job, so the bosses get mad. 4. The handler ends up helping the agent, giving away his own job/life/freedom so that the protege can escape.

This movie is no different. I don't get the appeal of trained spies suddenly growing a conscience, yet it happens in all of these films. Krueger isn't bad as the operative. Tim from the Office is a bit of a stretch as a spy/handler. The guy playing the Iranian boyfriend was excellent. The rest? We don't even know who they were. Just some spy bosses without names.

Remember the Brady Bunch episode when Peter Brady met a lookalike, and then he had to keep changing his outfit to fool his two dates? Nobody bothers to say "No way would his parents not tell the difference" because it's a cute sitcom for laughs. But when it's an 8-hour thriller movie, it's different. Sorry, but two husbands would know which sister was which. Period. The old outfit switcheroo happening every other scene gets old fast. And are we really expected to believe that giving yourself a ponytail will make your brother-in-law think you're his wife instead? Going into a bathroom and talking to yourself, pretending you are two different people to fool someone outside the door? Again, it's cute in the Brady Bunch but laughably unrealistic in a serious drama. And how about the way they talk? When Leni first shows up, they all talk to her like, "We haven't seen you since that big incident in our lives, back when you-know-when." Or the other lady who talks like, "I don't forgive you for that thing that you did to you-know-who at that place." It's supposed to get the audience intrigued, but after too much, it just made us turn the channel and read the summary online.

If you like a movie with attractive actors, a clear plot where you know exactly what is going on and who is doing what, then stay away from this one. You'll be left wondering what was real and what was in her head. Some other reviewer's compared this to the Jennifer Lawrence movie called Mother, and that is a very good comparison. Some nice visuals, but you don't know if the visuals are real or in her head. It's great that the writer knows what all these things symbolize, but if the viewer doesn't know, then that doesn't help.

When a woman walks into a tunnel, retreats, and goes back 5 minutes later to find the tunnel sealed up and blocked by bricks, that is a great creepy scene. When it's never explained, however, it's weak writing.

So the magicians thought their son was a wimp. Not a crime. Bev Mole kidnapped the kid, but why she locks up her husband with a literal lock and chain in a closet is never explained. Charlie Lake should be about the same age as the missing Alex, but they hint at Charlie being abusive to the kid, as if it were an adult/kid abuse instead of two young classmates. The magicians originally thought the whining liar protagonist was gonna blackmail them. With what? "I know your son was afraid of tigers, so give me money"? A messy poorly written waste.

A race to win a fortune, except this time via plane not cars. And without a funny cast. Or even a famous cast. Thank goodness for the wonderful Terry-Thomas, or this dud would not have gotten me through the overly loooong 2.5 hours.

Queenie was better. No one got draino poured down they throat. Great homage to the first one though. At least they had an Ike and an Adlai. Rebecca De was decent as "mother."

The first few episodes were great, as it had a wonderful mix of quirky comedic characters and they started mixing in a crime drama. It was well done and we were hooked. Can you beat Stephen Merchant and Christopher Walken as eccentric lovable losers?

But then it started getting annoying, which turned to not credible, which turned to looking at our watch to see how much time is left.

The main problem was the Rani and Ben characters. I know Ben wasn't a 100% willing and active gang member, but still, look at the stuff he was doing. Working for the gangsters, stealing money from a different gangster (while he was stealing a phone), sticking a gun in John's face and threatening the whole Outlaw crew, etc etc. Ben was NOT a quirky misdemeanor criminal like Merchant and Lady Gabby. He was a felon.

His sister didn't listen to him and joined the gang as well. She shot a guy (yeah, probably self defense, but Spider was pretty far away!) and treated Rena like crap after Rena tried to help her. Not cool.

And so an Oxford honor student decides to steal her loving parents' van and go help him with his felony? 100% not believable. Would not happen. But it gets worse. Slowly but surely, the other outlaws decide to help him as well.

The law-and-order woman in charge of the community service suddenly switches sides. She now takes the felon's side as well, and she lies to the police about everything.

Christian meanwhile, along with 2 of his thug companions, are about to leave the warehouse, but then he backs down from a fight against the outlaws? I think he would have ripped right through Myrna and anyone who stood in his way. Just absolutely not plausible for a gangster to back down from some senior citizens and a few petite women.

It's fine if Daniel Craig wants to quit playing James Bond. Just pass the torch to the next guy just like Connery and Moore and Brosnan and others did. No big deal. But why this insane notion to kill Bond? Is Craig's ego behind this, thinking he is so big that Craig's last stand must also be Bond's last stand? How do the producers, writers, and directors go along with this?

Yes, there will be other Bond films, but how are they going to explain a missile attack hitting him and surviving? Or a full reboot with no reference to past Bond films, like they do with horror films.

By the way, wasn't it convenient for Bond to believe Freddie Mercury when the latter said he'd been poisoned Bond? And James just said, "Okay, it must be true. And there can be no cure. He won. I'll just let myself die." 26 Bond films and hundreds of bad guys, and this is the one time Bond just simply gave up. Horrible ending.

...no one else will. It's a bizarre film that is disjointed and never comes together. Entirely separate scenes that have nothing to do with each other. And it shows! First, two hit men have to kill a guy for stealing some documents. The hitmen fire their guns, and the intended victim jogs away and for some unknown reason, the hitmen just give up and don't follow him.

He ends up at a church, where he tells one of the monks that he is innocent. The monk goes to visit the guy's girlfriend, but first we have to see a 15-minute scene of a couple dancing. Then a singer does a song for another few minutes. NOTHING to do with the plot. So the monk tells this lady a story about how he became a monk. Via flashback, we learn that the monk used to be a debaucherous, drunken womanizer, and he went on a trip with 5 friends. They got lost and ended up in a castle. They found food and wine and gorged themselves, then danced like drunken fools for 15 minutes of screen time. Then Christopher Lee shows up. He is the master of the castle and he offers the group all his riches if they help him find a mysterious woman on the castle grounds and bury her. They see some women stuck in cobwebs and find secret tunnels. They leave the castle in the morning. Seriously. That was it.

Well, as a huge Sparks fan, I loved this film...but when I started reading some of the negative reviews here, (5 stars or lower), I have to admit, the film had its flaws.

The positives are that so many people from Sparks' long past participated. The brothers seemed very honest and forthcoming about their career. Lots of wisecracks, but Ron's witty sarcasm did not dominate the entire time, and he was very open and serious about their career.

The negatives have been covered in other reviews...there is a LOT of "They released their next album. It didn't sell. They went to work on a new album...." I love when stories are told in chronological order, but this film desperately needed breaks in the timeline to mix it up. Also, I don't think they got into as much detail as they should have concerning the many, many (many) times Ron and Russ fired band members, got new session players, fired them, hired new folks, etc. WHY??

Ron showed a smidgen of regret for sacking the British band after the 2nd album, but come on. They sacked band member after band member over the years, and nothing was covered.

I agree with many other reviewers here that this is a fun film, but fails in too many aspects. The bald-headed kid from Stranger Things is given too much screen time, and she's paired with the conspiracy theory guy, a typical cliche, wise-cracking character that every movie has. And somehow this guy easily gets access to top secret information because a co-worker took a bathroom break and left his computer logged on.

The most predictable part is that--even though this is a monster movie--the true villain is a corporation. Big companies are the bad guys in modern movies, so a man who wants to harness energy from inside the earth is evil, but a couple of kids who break into laboratories etc are fine.

Kong's relationship with the little girl Jia was nice and heartwarming, but every time we had scenes like that, they would cut away to the Stranger Things kid instead.

Chastain holds her own as a cool hitman, and Colin Farrell and John Malkovich are great as well. Cool action scenes. But the movie fails because there is NOTHING original. It's not the CIA, but an organization like the CIA that has covert operators conducting assassinations and murders for hire of very bad people, political enemies, etc. After serving honorably for many years, the main hitman is now seen as a liability, and an order is given to take out the hitman. This has been done in soooooooooooo many other movies, that i was shocked to see the same exact plot develop in Ava too. Also, throw in the old mentor with a heart of gold who tries to protect the hero, and you have every single cliche in the book!!

The men trade cigarettes for favors. There is rape in the shower rooms. The cell block has a ruthless kingpin prisoner. There is a corrupt guard who helps the men sell drugs. One of the men dresses like a woman. Bad guys kill a prisoner and all say "I don't know who did it." A prisoner is scared at first, but earns the trust of his fellow inmates and toughens up during his stay. A visitor comes to see the prisoner, and he ends up crying because of the situation. There! Did this movie miss any of those same-old, same-old prison movie cliches? I know this is based on a true story, but I would have liked to see some unique elements of Billy's prison stay, and not the very very un-unique scenes that are in every other jail movie. You can overlook the fact that our hero is a heroin junkie who cannot control his temper, and eventually you want this criminal to win his boxing match. But they could have focused on some original pats of the book that weren't in a million other prison movies.

No inbred Hilicker family members. Just a stupid movie about a secret Utopia society living in the woods, and how everyone knows they are there, but no one does anything. The death scenes were gruesome, which was okay, but all the same. Like people getting their head bashed in over and over. Surely you can think of a different way to write a death , right? Extremely disappointed. This has ZERO to do with the real Wrong Turn series. Don't expect to see any familiar villains here.

What starts out as a cool revenge movie turned sideways fast, as our main hero changes her mind and some other guy has to come do the dirty work. This film was set up similarly to great films like I Spit On Your Grave or Last House on the Left, but the Nightingale was superior because was a step above and beyond. Instead of the girl just going off and killing the bad guys, in the Nightingale, she first had to find them. It was a road adventure movie in the wilderness as well as revenge. Great stuff. Along the way, the bad guys kept getting meaner and nastier and more violent, and that is great writing...it made us in the audience hate them more and more. It made us want to see Claire kill them all more and more. But we don't get that. Instead she chickens out, runs away, yells at the bad guy, then sings to him. I suppose this is to show that deep down, she didn't have it in her. But movies are not made for this. Movies are made for us the audience to enjoy. And there was no enjoyment and no satisfaction and no entertainment in watching her sing to the lieutenant and walk away. Not when we waited over 2 hours for her to get her revenge.

The atmosphere of the early scenes set in Bhutan were terrific. That isolated cabin, trapped in a storm, mysterious figure emerging from the snow, that cave with the awesomely spooky skeleton, Paul whispering the gibberish into his girlfriend's ear, Paul disappearing....this was one eerie movie, very supernatural, and we couldn't wait to see how it would develop. But then that movie ended. It ended suddenly. Cut to a brand new movie about some cliched ex-cop who is friends with the neighbor girl and her mom. (Big surprise, they were involved in the past and he is really the kid's father. Gee, was anyone on earth shocked over that reveal later in the film?) The girl goes missing and we find out she joined a cult with her clique of friends. All the friends fall victims of a mass murder, except the girl herself (for reasons that are never explained other than she's the main character so she was spared). Ex-cop/Daddy finds her and guess what? In true movie cliche, the girl does not want to leave the cult. Another big surprise? Uh, no. At the end, the spooky guy from Bhutan is seen again, but just lays there in a coma, no longer spooky. Ex-cop shoots an unarmed, sleeping man. Wow, I wish this movie stayed in Bhutan the whole time!

It's a decent murder-mystery thriller if you don't care about finding out who the killer really is, getting the crimes solved, or the "hero" of the story really being a murderer himself, along with his cronies who willingly cover it up for him. As others have said, Jared Leto is fantastic as the guy who...well, he may be the killer or he may just some some moron who willfully provokes angry policemen into thinking he's the killer. We'll never know. Denzel is always great, but the dude who played Freddie Mercury is not realistic as a seasoned detective. By the way, right off the bat, a small-town deputy from a rural area in the dust north of Los Angeles would NOT be asked "Hi, wanna come along for a ride to an active crime scene and help LAPD?" Unrealistic from the get go. Yes, in the real world, some crimes are unsolved and some killers are still out there. But this is not real. It's a movie, and the writer/director owed the audience, at the very least, to sum up who the killer was.