I watch a minimum of 100-115 movies each month, easy. That's over 1200 per year. Seeing that many movies has taught me to appreciate the wide variety of styles and artistic expression that make up the many movies released year after year. The world's oldest profession is the Shaman, the Witch Doctor, the Healthcare worker. The world's second oldest profession is storytelling.
15 year old Zelda Adams in the lead role of this little known gem recites her lines as if she were reading poetry, beautiful poetry. Her eloquent cadence, rhythm, and tone gave the movie a haunting quality usually polished and performed by actors several years her senior. Her delivery reminded me of the more reflective stories seen in movies like 'The Ballad of Buster Scruggs' for example, and was a treat to experience. I wonder if the people who trash the hard work that goes into making movies intended to deliver a message or cause the viewer to think can explain exactly what the Director of Photography does or the purpose of an Art Director and why a Movie Director will take in the added expense of hiring them. I can't imagine someone more knowledgeable about the technical side of movie making would give this move a 1, a 2, or a 3. The cinematography and art direction of 'Hatred' is vivid and relevant throughout the movie and for me a noticeable treat.
I can't say enough about this movie. I enjoyed it thoroughly. My lone gripe about the movie is that I that I wished it were longer than 59 minutes. I would have liked to have seen another 20 minutes and could have easily settled in on an additional 40. It was written and delivered that well. Perhaps the not so obvious beauty of this story is its simplicity and focus on the main characters to be able to say and relate so much in a so short a period of time.
I'd recommend this to anyone who likes a good movie beyond the usual Hollywood extravaganzas of X-Men and Marvel Studios, and challenge anyone who takes the time to watch 'Hatred' to imagine they're sitting around a camp fire in Ice Age Europe, or the Serengeti a few thousand years ago, after supper, and listening a tribal elder tell a similar unusual and scary story.
1. There are only 6 episodes per season. There should be at least 8 or 10.
2. It's 25 minutes long. It should be 45 minutes. Or 50 minutes.
3. Season 3 may not air till near the end of 2020. Too long a wait.
4. Amazon would probably do all of the above but Netflix probably won't.
Weird only for the sake of being weird. I'm easy on movies/people's creative efforts. I usually hand out 8s, 9s, and 10s as if they were Gummy Bears and Blo-Pop suckers for the kids on Halloween. On the rare occasion where I do dip below 5 stars I most often do what my mother always told me to do. If I can't say something nice...I don't say anything at all. And yet, here I am. Disappointed in the movie after 97 minutes of hoping it would offer some appreciable redeeming or artistic value (I strongly hesitate to criticize its artistic value since I myself can barely cut and paste) only to be sadly disappointed by its emptiness. How bad could it be I reasoned? After all my boy Jesse Eisenberg is in it and most of his movies are usually 8s... Aren't they?
Sorry, but I will not take the time to describe the storyline or plot to you. Instead I will recommend that you see the trailer on YouTube to get the feel and flavor of this movie and keep in mind that what you see is what you get. And that's all.
I Give It A 10 Counter The Miserably Undeserved Low Rating
I watch, at minimum, 95 movies each month. I've been doing that for the past 10 years. I'm retired, I have the time. Scuse me while I add that up.
I have seen my fair share of 3s and 4s and even a few 1s. This production of "Cats' is nowhere near that category. It never ceases to amaze how armchair critics, and even paid critics, can so casually look at a production that obviously to a lot of work to make and trash it as "garbage", "a disaster", "a waste of time" or any of the other many negative adjectives they use to describe something they themselves have neither the wherewithal, money, or connections, to ever make themselves. I often wonder what they would make if they had the talent to make anything other than negative, non constructive criticisms, of other people's labor and efforts.
Are there bad, awful, movies out there? Yes, Loads of them. But when you see 900+ movies in a single year you come to realize that it is not most of them. A lot a movies are average which does not make them bad. I have seen B movies, (I even call some of them B+ movies) that are as good as and even better than some 'A' movies rated highly here on IMDb.
But getting back to the negative 'Cats' reviews.
It seems to me that what we are seeing here with all these 1s and 2s and "I wish I could give it a 0", "now I want to die", and "what a waste of time" ( although what else they had better to do...they never say), are as I described earlier "armchair critics" who are merely following the leader. An earlier review by some nameless, but paid critic, said the "CGI made the movie creepy." And sure enough you see that same description parroted here several times by people who can compare it to nothing other than the 'Broadway' version for how awful is. Followers following a leader without an original observation.
I'm glad I know better than to base every movie I see on the ratings given by people who expect every movie they see to change their lives. Now granted, Most of the 2s and 3s given here on IMDb are well deserved and I avoid them. A LOT of the 4s are 5s ( in my opinion) are really 5s and 6s and are really good, enjoyable, movies, if you are not only looking for Marvel Blockbusters or big budgets with big named stars. Every movie cannot be a Marvel Studios blockbuster or a Jason Bourne hit and star Anthony Hopkins or Robert De Nero.
This is all my opinion I know. And a lot of you will give 'me' a 1 or 2 for this essay. But there are some of you who will agree with me and like one person said, "open a beer and enjoy the movie." Those of you haven't seen 'Cats', give it a break and imagine how You would make it better if you could when you do see it. And keep in mind when the 'Wizard Of Oz' first came out some of the critics trashed that too. I'll bet anyone dollars to donuts in 25-30 years most people will not see 'Cats', as "cat litter".
I was among the first babies in history to be born with Television. My parents did not see TV until they were in their late teens and early twenties. Through the years, I have watched television evolve from basic formats like Suspense, Lawrence Welk, Father Knows Best, and Twilight Zone, to Little House On The Prairie, Star Trek Discovery and more recently, 'Anne With An E'.
This is a delightful series, with superb actors and masterful storytelling that frequently has me dabbing my eyes with, happy, sad, and all emotions in between for appreciation of the skill and thoughtfulness with which this series is put together and produced.
As a 63 year old man who has seen literally 1000s of movies and television dramas, I can proudly say that 'Anne With An E' is among the best.
Looking forward to, and hoping for a 3rd season.
BRAVO to everyone involved with giving us this fine collection of stories.
I do not understand the people who give this wonderful series of storytelling, 1s ands 2s or anything below a 5 except that it was not what they would have made IF they had talent enough to write, produce and screen such a work as this.
Their greatest talent seems to be high school typing skills and effective use of the Grammerly application. As far as art, they rarely ever bother to name or suggest anything better, and are satisfied with themselves to recommend other people to skip Anne With An E.
Those who heed them without judging for themselves the quality of this series, do so at their own loss.
I guess I was too political before but more than likely it may have been because they considered it offensive to a group in our society who must be protected from opinions that it might find offensive even when it comes from a member of that protected group.
Any way, let me try it this way. This is the most unbelievable, predictable, patronizing, tripe of a movie I've seen all year, and I watch at minimum, 80-90 movies each month every month.
I've seen this one before and after the first 12 time it wears a little thin.
I just wish they could find other people to play these roles instead of the usual suspects doing the usual things. That's all I was saying in my first review.
Maybe this is also too offensive. One must ALWAYS tread lightly in these matters,and I know that. It's just that you can't always be certain how light.
The movie sucked. I gave it a 3 because few movies deserve less and I don't like to trash people's efforts and hard work...even if the movie sucks. Watch the clip for a preview of what to expect. If that's your cup of tea, to each his own.
Much Much Better Than The 4.1 Rating This Now Has.
Two things have caused me to write this review. 1. The low and misleading rating. 2. A review that started "I've just watched this, and I have to say - it's horrible."
I hope by now most of the regulars here know better than to let every IMDb rating or review, on every movie, decide for you if you'll watch the movie or not. I have found those ratings and those opinions often times to be flawed although more often than not they are close to accurate. That is to say, 3.9 and below are usually accurate and not very artful examples of movie making, skill or imagination. 4.5 are often better than that 4.5 rating but not all the time. That's why it bothers me that this has a 4.1 and might be overlooked by a sci-fi buff or someone simply interested in a good movie, because of the IMDb rating. I watch minimal, 80 movies each month from all genres mostly from the 2000's up to today. I'm sure I watch at least 1000 movies per year. Easily. If all you watch are 30-50 movies each year and you expect them all to be Academy Award eligible or Marvel Studios Productions, lest they are are not up to your standards ' then yeah, you might think 'Humanity Bureau' is "horrible." It would be nice if more of these people who claim that a particular movie with, a good plot, good actors and some kind of a budget is "horrible", gave an example of a comparable movie that was 'great' so we would know what to compare it to from his or her viewpoint.
I give this movie a 10 in part to counterbalance the 4.1 that I feel it doesn't deserve. It's a good story, a cautionary tale relevant to the political climate we live in these days where we are called on to trust that the government has 'our' best interests at heart when really they have the interests of the elites at heart and good should trickle down to us...eventually. The acting is good, you can't do something for more than 20 years and not be excellent at it so Nicholas Cage, of course, was convincing as were most of the rest of the cast. Cinematography, for those of you who pay attention to that sort of thing, was relevant and artfully done. The movie put a lump in my throat in a couple of parts, always a sign for me of a well-crafted story. Can't say what those parts are without a spoiler alert so I won't. Hopefully, you'll see for yourself.
Also, keep in mind America is a much tougher audience than other parts of the world and despite money, effort, thought and time, far beyond anything the armchair critic has ever undertaken, many of them will still completely trash the efforts of people waayyy more creative and imaginative than themselves. This movie is better than a 4.1, but that's the opinion of someone who watches movies incessantly from all around the world. Still, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'd hands-down watch this movie again (something I rarely do) compared to oh, say...2001 A Space Oddesy.
Just watch it for yourself and then decide. It is not a waste of time.
I want to nominate for the Obscure Movie of the Month...No Such thing.
A delightful and imaginative 'monster movie' that sent me immediately to IMDb to give it my 10 points where I was glad but not surprised to see that I was not in the minority Where do I start to explain a horror movie that has no comparison except *maybe* Beauty and the Beast ?
In a America where terrorists regularly load dynamite on to the Manhattan bridge and subways are routinely evacuated because of nerve gas releases a young unappreciated journalist is allowed by her chain smoking, sensation seeking news editor, played with aplomb by Helen Mirren, to go to Iceland in search of her missing fiancé, a camera crew member, only to wind up the lone survivor of a trans Atlantic airplane crash and pieced back together by doctors. Once healed some six months later she resumes her journey and the search for her fiancé. Arriving in an obscure region of Iceland she is told by the villagers that her boy friend was killed by 'the Monster' a potty mouthed, hard drinking, remorseless creature who cannot die.
Together they come to America. You ain't seen nothing quite like this.
Whoever thought of this story (writer/director Hal Hartley) has some imagination and I will be looking for more of his work.
After seeing all the 1's users gave this movie I gave it a 10 to try to help balance it out. Americans are a jaded lot and we tend to think that every movie has to be a life changing experience to be good. As a result so many good movies become obscure never having really reach the true movie enthusiast.
"Zookeeper" is a funny, well written if not familiar movie that at least tries to throw in a couple of new twists. Before seeing Zookeeper I wondered what magical circumstance would cause the animals to talk. I must admit I did not expect the most obvious approach which was to simply premise that the zoo animals... MINOR SPOILER ALERT... talk anyway and all the time, away from humans. Maybe they learned it from all the people talking in front of them for so many years... to really enjoy a movie of this type suspension of disbelief is required as in any fantasy move.
By now I'm sure you know the plot so I won't take your time other than to say please watch this movie if you go in for this kinda thing, a comedy, romance, fantasy with a good pace and familiar faces. Too much talent was invested to just be shooed away largely by people who have never created any type of art in their lives and who probably have a whole list of movies that you would give a 1 to.
I'm easy on movies. I appreciate most attempts by other people to create things. However, "Insane" has to be the worst movie I've ever seen and having seen 100's in this year alone that's saying a lot. The movie starts off with the time worn cliché' girl in the bathtub being spied upon, but that's OK, that theme still has a little leg room in the hands of a capable writer. Even with five writers this movie never rises above a predictable and substandard dialogue and falls completely flat on true suspense. But that's not the worst of it. The low budget, the "how in the world could that happen?" scenes that seems to occur every 5 minutes and the unconvincing lead actor serial killer made me wonder if I should be watching lead paint dry instead. All I had to look forward to was the ending in the hopes that there I would find some release, some satisfaction, some moral to the story but my hopes were dashed when the credits rolled up.
Only the makers of this movie and their closest friends would enjoy this movie. Oh yeah...and serial killers.