SteveStockholm

Top review read "not as bad as the negative reviews says" so I watched it. But the fact is, it's just as bad as the negative reviews say. It really is.

This movie is cliche, unfunny, sappy and boring at the same time. Meanwhile, the concepts, characters and dialogue are all mediocre at best and downright cringy at worst. It's also no way near as clever as it thinks it is. Put simply this is just a poorly written movie. The actors do their best with what they're given but, well, that only go so far. And yes, it is absolutely a ripoff of MIB, but not a good one.

To summarize: Don't bother. Not even on Netflix. There are so many better films.

This is an excellent documentary, IF you understand what it is and who it's for. What it is NOT is "The Beginner's Guide to Champagne"! It does not try to be and it's not intended to be. If you are a complete novice to wine you may still get something from this but I strongly advice you to do some research on sparkling wines in general and Champagne in particular before you watch the film.

If, on the other hand, you're an intermediary (advanced beginner to beginning advanced) then this film is right up your alley. It does assume some basic knowledge on your part and it won't waste your time going over the very basics of sparkling wine making, what grapes are grown in this legendary region, what the traditional method is and things of that nature. Instead it provides you with a great insight into the realities of wine making in Champagne. On top of that you get many gorgeous views of the rugged landscape and the charming people of the region.

Finally, if you are an advanced wine enthusiast with an intimate knowledge of the style and region, then you won't learn much new here, but you will still enjoy the vistas and personalities.

So, this film is absolutely recommended, as long as you understand what you are watching. The film is slow and beautiful, full of atmosphere and people, like a good documentary should be. Just don't expect it to be a quick guide for those with no knowledge and a short attention span. In fact, why not enjoy it with a glass of bubbly.

I don't even like Will Ferrel, usually, but I loved this movie.

Granted, I grew up with the Eurovision Song Contest, and I danced to ABBA's Waterloo in 1974, just like the kid in the movie, but this was surprisingly good.

In all honesty, I've no idea how this would play to an American audience who don't know the Eurovision Song Contest, but if you are familiar with it, then this is bound to touch you. In fact, the Eurovision begs to be made fun of in a loving way and this is the movie that does just that.

Will Ferrell is surprisingly not like Will Ferrell in this movie so if you have had a hard time with him in the past, do give this a shot. This is a great comedy, it takes the already camp concept of the Eurovision and amplifies it just enough to make it hilarious without ever being mean.

I didn't expect to like this movie as much as I did but much thanks to Will Ferrell, Rachel McAdams, Mikael Persbrandt, Pierce Brosnan and Dan Stevens, I very much did.

I've seen the first two episodes at the time of writing this. I like the premise a lot, I like the challenge with riding electric bikes. What I don't like is how scripted this feels.

The first episode where they prepare was very entertaining and interesting. The second episode, also the first day of actual travel, was not. There are way too many manufactured crisis situations for this to have credibility. For example, during preparation they had access to the HD Livewire engineers and the Rivian engineers, but nobody thought to inform the team that charging the batteries in sub zero temperatures was going to be a problem? Really? Then there was the guy that opened up his hotel just for them. The worst, perhaps, was that both Rivian trucks ran out of juice on the road in the middle of nowhere. I'd have to assume that the Rivians are like all other EV's, namely they will warn you if you risk running out of juice. It's pretty much impossible to run out of electricity in an EV since the navigation system will reroute you to a charger. But we're supposed to believe that BOTH trucks still somehow ran out of juice in the middle of nowhere? Right.

I hope that future episodes will do better but so far there is way, way too much scripted drama. All this preparing, all this support and they can't even route the vehicles to the next charge point? Silly. I dunno, maybe they are intentionally playing to petrol-heads who want to hear that "EV's don't work", but in that case, why did Rivian and HD play along?

I'll give it a few more episodes, but it's not off to a good start.

Other's have described the premise so i won't waste time on doing that. I appreciate what they tried to do with this film and I am very sympathetic to the idea. The "documentary" is clearly a continuation of the game / performance art piece itself. The film makers mix actual people who are themselves and who were involved with this game / art piece, with actors and "faked" material, attempting to create the same sort of illusion of mystery that the game / art project did.

The problem is that the acted / constructed parts are too obvious, to anyone who is reasonably observant, I think. I had no problem picking out the actors, and the constructed material (for example, there is no missing girl, the supposed police interrogation tape that is played is obviously faked/acted etc). The same with some events that some of the people explain, that just don't quite sound plausible.

I'm not necessarily criticizing the film makers for these flaws, I think that this is an exceptionally difficult stunt to pull off. If this proves anything it's that reality is really, really difficult to recreate or fake. It's a pity, to be honest, I would have loved this film/project, if it had done a better job at fooling me.

It's possible that ALL of it is "constructed" or faked and that I only picked out some of the acted parts, and that what I do believe are actual people are also acted, but the critique still stands because I too easily saw through way too much to keep the illusion going.

So... watch it if you find the concept interesting. The film is not a complete waste of time, but ultimately I think it fails in its goals.

This movie is not awful but nowhere near the original in any sense and the plot is seriously lacking, not to mention that it undercuts the whole point with the story in the first movie.

The 10/10 reviews here are entirely by the MAGA crowd who gets excited by the "real American" showing all those "frogs" what's what. American exceptionalism and stereotypical "foreigners" aside, there is not much to admire here.

Last night I took my wife to see J'Accuse - "An Officer and a Spy" and I feel compelled to review it. I won't hold you in suspense: this is an amazing film and you should see it.

J'Accuse takes its time and, at least initially, speaks with a soft voice but it never feels slow, much thanks to the exceptional cinematography. The craftsmanship here is outstanding: every scene is a painting, every actor excels. Louis Garrel is brilliant and has an uncanny resemblance of the real Dreyfus. Jean Dujardin does the performance of his career, I predict this to be as defining a moment for him as Cyrano was for Gérard Depardieu. Costumes, props and visuals are second to none. But these things only makes this a well-crafted costume film and J'Accuse is much more than that - it is important.

I admit not knowing anything about the Dreyfus Affair before I had to write an essay about it in my French class last fall, but "L'Affair" (as it was known at the time) is a defining moment in French history, treated with the same reverence as the revolution and for good reason. The fate of Alfred Dreyfus is a story about prejudice, antisemitism, cowardice and blind nationalism but also a tale of courage, honor and a commitment to truth. As both, it is intensely relevant to our time. J'Accuse never preaches and takes its time before it impacts but when it does, it leaves you speechless.

J'Accuse shows the French republic at its absolute ugliest and at its most beautiful. This is not just a great film that happens to be French. J'Accuse HAD to be in French for the same reason that Der Untergang HAD to be in German. Having an idea what the Dreyfus Affair was about (and who people like Émile Zola were) will enhance the experience of this film but you should see it regardless.

I'll rank J'Accuse in the top three movies I've seen during half a century of movie-going. See it, preferably in the theater, and if you come out thinking this is boring... then I can't help you. Art, much like fine wine and love, is not for everyone. If J'Accuse is Roman Polanski's last film (and it might well be as he is 87) then it is one hell of a swan song. This film is a masterpiece.

A note regarding the 1/10 reviews you see here on IMDB: these "reviews" are not of the film, they are written by people with a political agenda. I think what the metoo-activists hate most about this film (those who have even seen it) is that they recognize themselves, not in its heroes or its victims, but in the shrieking mobs outside the courthouse, filled with righteous rage, baying for blood. The irony in that this places progressives (who see themselves as the most enlightened) in a position where they are attacking a film about anti-semitism and bigotry should not be lost on anyone.

This is an excellent documentary featuring wall to wall heavy hitters, both the athletes and the scientists are top drawer, not "influencers" or professional opinion makers.

If you expect a typical vegan movie like Cowspiracy you will perhaps be disappointed but I feel that's the source of Game Changers strength. This is about informing but mostly about busting myths. It is also very inspiring, a movie that not only makes you want to get healthy but which makes you want to hit the gym. Anyone with an interest in health and/or fitness can take away something from this film, even those who are not and have no intention of going vegan.

Give it a shot, it might change more than your diet.

Dix pour cent (Call my agent) is a fantastic comedy. It's well written and acted, modern and fresh but without any politically correct preaching (because it's French, the same concept made in most other western countries would have been a disaster). The characters are human, flawed and likable, their problems relatable. Like all good comedy there is an element of drama and some sad moments. This is fantastic television.

Highly recommended almost regardless of who you are, assuming you have an ounce of sophistication.

This movie is entirely built around beautiful set pieces, included no matter how many irrational plot devices that is necessary to facilitate them.

Oblivion is evidence that the big movie companies assumes that most viewers are stupid. The long line of 10/10 reviews here is evidence that they are right.

Few things in this movie makes any sense whatsoever, from the stupid energy scheme to the pointless technological gadgets all the way to the transparent pool. This movie is dumb, painfully stupid, mindlessly pretty. Perhaps it's little surprise that the average movie goer would love it.

If you are equipped with a three digit IQ on the other hand... don't waste your time.

People who give this a 1 or 2 out of 10 must have an axe to grind or some kind of agenda. This is not the greatest SciFi movie ever, it is not even as good as the 5th Element, but it sure is not a 1 or 2 out of 10.

Yes, the acting is dodgy from the leads but that rarely matters since the film builds on visuals and action. The plot is complex and a bit messy but again, not to the point where it ruins the fun. Is Valerian better than Star Wars Episode 7 and 8? You better believe it! Yes, it is a better SciFi than Disney Star Wars, granted that does not say a lot.

You may not love this film, but it is absolutely worth the price of admission and not without its merits. I have no idea what is wrong with those who seem to hate this film, unless you hate SciFi in general this will at least entertain you and probably more.

Seth McFarlane is the new Adam Sandler.

That's pretty much all that needs to be said. This movie is terrible, the jokes are few, repeated too many times and juvenile. The core idea of the movie is potentially funny but the writing and execution is simply not good enough. A host of known actors can't save this mess either.

There are much better ways to spend your time, even most bad movies are better than this so watch something else.

Straight to the point. This movie is bad, it fails as a comedy on nearly every level. It's not because the cast is female, it's bad because it's not funny, does not feature any compelling characters and... oh dear, it's supposed to be a comedy and the jokes just. Are. Not. Funny.

There is a long string of positive reviews here but I am certain that these are made for political reasons. They are way, way too positive to be honest. I can believe it that some people might find this movie "ok" or "worth a watch" but it's literally impossible that anyone finds it a "10/10" and "hilarious". That's just not possible.

Whatever your politics, whatever you think of the female cast, whether you are a feminist or not, female or not, young or old, here is the full, uncensored, sad truth: This is a bad movie. See it at your own risk.

A very interesting documentary for anyone who lifts or has a general interest in bodybuilding. It is stocked with industry insiders, not just the bodybuilders themselves (though there are plenty of those) but also others who has been pulling strings behind the scenes.

I suppose this film get more interesting if you have some clue about the history of the sport and have less to offer someone who is completely new to this topic. Also, if you are looking for an "inspirational" film, then this is not it. Evolution of Bodybuilding concerns itself with exactly what the title says nothing else. The development from the early days, to the golden age and all the way up to the current "freak show" aesthetics. I perceived the film as being unusually even-handed. It does not shy away from controversial topics (like classic/freak aesthetics) but doesn't take sides either.

Finally, there are some real pearls in this film, like hearing the real giants of old like Frank Zane talk about their experiences so many years later.

Recommended to anyone with an interest in bodybuilding, though in particular to those with an intellectual bend.

I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories about organized fake reviews on IMDb but in this particular case... I'm just not so sure.

Page after page with glowing reviews proclaiming this to be a ten out of ten movie masterpiece. That is absolutely ridiculous. Note that almost 80000 people have given it an average score of 3.3 at the time of this writing, and personally I think that is high. This is a terrible, terrible movie. I'm sure there are people who might think that this is okay or worth a watch but nobody can honestly give this piece of manure ten out of ten.

So, don't believe the positive reviews, this is a bad film. A very bad film. No, it has nothing to do with Halle berry being black. She is celebrated as a beautiful woman as well as being a good actress when she gets the right part, so if anything people are being nice for her sake. It's not all her fault either. But regardless of where you put the blame - this movie is horrible.

It's rare that I can't sit through a movie but I just could not bring myself to finish watching Day of the Mummy.

The main problem, though not by any means the only one, is William McNamara who plays the main character. I can't recall seeing anything else he has done, though I probably have, so I am unsure if he is always this bad but in this film at least, he is absolutely terrible. I mean high-school play bad. Answering machine message bad. Amateur acting of the worst kind.

This might have been excused if he had looked the part of a kick-ass adventurer, but he doesn't. The dude is neither handsome (I consulted an expert on this one, i.e. my wife) nor the least bit fit. A striking and muscular tough guy might get away with shoddy acting when he is portraying a bad-ass hero but an average bloke who can't act... are you kidding me? I could go on about the shoddy craftsmanship in almost every aspect of this film but I really can't be bothered. The poor acting alone is reason enough to back out of this one.

The fact is that I wanted to like this movie. I had low expectations, I love mummy-flicks and I think that the POV thing was an interesting take on this kind of movie. Unfortunately this film is just bad. Not in a good way, not in a fun way and not in a way you can overlook. It's just plain bad.

The film gets 2 instead of 1 out of 10 because it attempted a somewhat creative take on a classic sub-genre. But it only barely deserves it.

This is an excellent rockumentary with a truly epic scope. It takes on the task of covering the birth and development of Heavy Metal in it's major development stages and it examines its most important genres. Sam Dunn is best known for his documentaries Metal A Headbanger's Journey and Global Metal. This series is a deep dive into the tree of metal evolution that figured in both his previous documentaries.

This is not merely a fan-boy celebration of his favourite music, it is a genuinely well made and even-handed documentary film as well. Apart from interviews with many important, even legendary, people the series also explain the roots and development of this music in detail without losing the rock'n'roll feeling. Fun and educational.

Heavy Metal is a complex and important music style which, at its best, provides a musical and cultural depth that rarely receive any respect in mainstream media. Despite attempts (sometimes successful in the short term) to commercialize it, Heavy Metal have managed to stay genuine.

One can of course debate Dunns choices of bands and interview victims in some cases. For example a notable omission is AC/DC which is only mentioned in passing (true for all Sam Dunns documentaries), this is never explained and might have legal or practical reasons. Never the less, what is here is comprehensive enough and then some.

This is required viewing not only for Metal fans but for anyone with a serious interest in any sort of music. I believe classical musicians or fans who are not familiar with Heavy Metal would find this interesting, for instance. Also, the series is interesting from a cultural/sub-cultural/anthropologic perspective as well. Recommended!

This is a much better movie than many reviews and the rating here would suggest. I believe the main reason for the low average score is that some people expected a typical Jack Black and/or Steve Martin comedy. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the movie is in the wrong category here on IMDb, it should be classified as Drama. So it's not the silly laugh-fest you might be expecting.

What this is, however, is a quiet but very atmospheric movie about friendship, life and priorities. Without getting too deep it asks questions about what's important and what isn't, about where to draw the line between love and obsession, and about choosing a life that makes you happy over one that is expected of you. It's a feel-good movie with some funny moments and a lot of warm-hearted ones.

If you are looking for yet another brain-dead Hollywood slapstick comedy then this isn't it, but it is an excellent movie about three people who share a common interest but little else. It will leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling in your heart.

This is a brilliant movie in many respects, but it is also unusual enough to almost be unique.

The view of the middle east presented in Syriana is the most true to life I have seen in any American movie ever, and I've lived in the middle east so I have some experience (lived peacefully, I hasten to add, I didn't go there to shoot the locals). The view on the ultra-corrupt oil business is also penetrating to the point of being uncomfortable to watch.

Some here have criticized it for being above the head of the "average movie-goer". I would argue that depends on where that movie-goer lives and what he or she knows. For the crowd who's world-view is shaped entirely by CNN and the like(or worse, FOX news) the world presented in Syriana will no doubt seem alien. That shadow does not fall on the film, though.

It is however true that Syriana demands some attention from its viewer. It is indeed complex (though not complicated) and a general understanding of world politics certainly does help.

Many of the negative reviews here seem to come from people wanting to be spoon-fed the same old Hollywood hero-worship (these are the "it's boring" reviews). If that is you, then you won't like Syriana.

The rest of the negative reviews are mainly politically motivated. Not because Syriana is a preaching political film, it isn't, but because it does not toe the line and stick to the official message. Syriana portraits middle easterners as real people for one thing (this alone makes it a target for accusations of "glorifying terrorism" of course). But it also attempts, and mostly succeeds, in showing the religious/political/cultural complexities of the region. Finally it gives a realistic account of the real reasons for terrorism (as opposed to the standard "they-hate-us-because-they-are-evil" garbage).

As for acting it is very well done all around. George Clooney does an excellent job, as does, unsurprisingly William Hurt but the mid east actors also put on a very convincing performance. Extra points for using local actors and let them speak their own languages, rather than having American-Arabs speak broken English. The tempo of the story is generally slow though the cuts are fast, this only make the moments of violence hit you so much harder.

This film is highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the subject-matter, a brain and a reasonable attention-span.

This is a very scary film and it is decidedly unpleasant to watch. It depicts a horrific indoctrination of little children by fundamentalist evangelical Christians in a straight-forward documentary manner.

Seen with northern European eyes this film is a decent into a darkness that most people (who lacks first-hand experience of the USA) probably didn't believe existed.

What makes this film unusual as well as powerful is that there is no real counterpoint, no voice-over, no balanced account. What goes on is seen entirely from the Christians perspective. The only slight counterpoint consist of a more liberal (read more sane) Christian radio host. The actual families portrait can't have anything to complain about, they get to tell their story without any counter-arguments. They get the whole show.

Normally this would have seemed imbalanced (and in a sense it is) but this is exactly what makes the film so effective. No counter-argument is required, these people are just that scary. So instead of arguing the film-makers simply give them all the rope they need to hang themselves.

For this very reason some religious nuts actually like this film. All I can say about that is this: if you watch the treatment of these children without feeling sick to the stomach then you are (and I choose my words very carefully) utterly beyond redemption.

This film is very unpleasant to watch for anyone with a hint of morality in their character. It will probably make you angry, it might make you sick, it might make you cry. But you should watch it anyway because it is that important.

I suspect I shall simply repeat what others have already said, but here we go.

This is a brilliant comedy and it's required viewing for anyone with the slightest taste for satire. Life of Brian is possibly the best comedy film ever made, certainly in the top three.

The classic Monty Python formula of silliness on top with intelligence underneath were never done better. Beyond that it is also a high quality production, which means it has aged better than some of Monty Python's other creations. For example the famous musical number on the cross is absolutely first class from a musical perspective and the scene where a Roman patrol forces an activist to correct the spelling of his graffiti is one of the best jokes in film history.

On a side-note it is deeply ironic that this silly film is actually closer to the Jesus myth (and what little historical evidence there is for it) than so called serious religious films like "The Passion of the Christ".

For those too young to have seen this already: don't let it's age scare you away, give it a go, it's still a very, very funny flick.

Stake Land does not fit neatly into any one genre. Rather it can be described as a horror/drama with action elements in the form of a road movie.

It is, however, a very good movie. The pace is brilliant, most of the time it's slow which means the outbursts of horror/action carry all the more punch when they come. There is also gore but it can hardly be called extreme for a horror flick. The acting is good overall and in some cases excellent, especially Kelly McGuinness and Connor Paolo.

The script is very good in my opinion, especially the study in human behavior when society breaks down. In the end it is the humans who come off as the real monsters, rather than the vampires. It should also be said that this is an excellent anti-dote to True Blood, Twilight and all their fellow copycats.

But apart from first-class pacing, good acting, script and beautiful cinematography, the film also contain some social commentary and this lifts it another notch above most in the genre. Without ever preaching, Stake Land goes beyond the normal brain-dead horror films in providing an intelligent social backdrop.

Some complains that the vampires have some traits of zombies and others of vamps. I would call this a bit of originality, no idea why it's supposed to be a good thing that all horror flicks conform to the same standard formula.

Also, the genre-transcending nature of this film can (and apparently have) make some horror-fans disappointed because they expected something else. If you are looking for the regular thoughtless gore-fest with a killing every 2 minutes then this is not the film to see. On the flip side, those who like human dramas but are sensitive to gore and violence won't like it either. You kind of need a taste for both.

I am normally not a huge horror-fan but I loved this film and that may tell you something. Strongly recommended to horror-fans with a taste for drama, or to drama-fans with the stomach for some blood.

Those expecting or hoping for an action flick will be sorely disappointed, but that's because they went to see the wrong film. This is mostly a character portrait of a troubled man, a tragic drama with plenty of believable humanity and even warmth.

In spite of the Hollywood superstar playing the main character, the tempo and style of this film is very much what Americans often refer to as "European" (except those that know something about film and therefore understand the silliness of putting, say, Bergman, Fassbinder and Fellini under the same label). In other words this film is understated, close to the ground and thoughtful. The tempo is low and the emotional content is high. Hollywood used to make films like this but that was long ago and it's exceedingly rare nowadays.

George Clooney does what is possibly his best performance ever as a jaded assassin trying to change his life. His character portrait of this troubled man is very good indeed. Anyone who is under the impression that Clooney just gets by on good looks and charm might want to let this movie change their mind. The guy is an excellent actor, when given the chance.

The rest of the cast (mainly Placido, Reuten and Bonacelli) also perform very well. The script is not remarkable but the excellent direction, photography and acting is what makes the movie.

If you read the negative reviews you will see that most complain about "no talking and no action". With the risk of sounding elitist, the fact is that a certain level of sophistication is required to appreciate this movie. I also saw some complaints about the sex scenes and I disagree strongly. My opinion is that the sex scenes are probably more relevant and motivated in this film than almost any other I have seen. They are there to illustrate the relationship between the characters as it evolves from shallowly physical to desperately emotional.

The biggest problem with this film is that the subject matter probably attracts a lot of people who won't like or understand it (because they expect something different), while repelling many who would actually love it if they saw it.

This film is possibly the worst remake ever made.

Luc Besson's Nikita was a brilliant action flick with an outstanding script, first class acting and amazing direction. (as a side-note Nikitas first 10 minutes contain the best "cyberpunk" atmosphere this side of Blade Runner).

In spite of the fact that this remake follows the original almost scene by scene, it still manages to do everything wrong. That almost merits some sort of award.

First of all we never actually see that the heroine is guilty, the cop-killing isn't shown and the door is certainly open to assume she was falsely accused. And this of course misses the entire point of the whole script. In the original Nikita was a true bad-girl, addict, cop-killer at the society's absolute bottom. That is the frigging premise for the whole story! But I guess in Hollywood all heroes have to be snow white and pure, or at least allow that interpretation.

But the rest is just as bad. The direction doesn't even play in the same league as Besson's original. The acting is flat and shallow without the humanity that propels Nikita. Besson's masterpiece becomes something pointless and ordinary. That's a crime.

See the original movie, it is well worth it. Don't see this one.

I won't spend too much time rehashing what so many others have already written, but I will add my voice. This is truly a failed movie.

The script is horrible and the direction is no where near what one would expect from QT. Occasional glimpses of good acting can't save this train wreck of a movie. The references to classic films are too many, too obvious and utterly pointless. The violence is speculative without being the least bit satirical, it's just violence-porn. Finally there is the unpleasant feeling that the "message" of the movie is actually very close to that of the real life Nazis, even though the roles are reversed.

I'm sorry to say that Tarrantino is way past his peak and if this film is any indication he might want to consider doing something else for a while.

The contradictory positive reviews are puzzling, I can only assume there are lots of QT fan-boys out there who just can't criticize their idol.