TigerHeron

I didn't understand this film and I found it boring. It is a tedious legal drama with most scenes occurring in a courtroom. There is some examination of the psychology of the young boy. I'm just not sure what we were supposed to think at the end. I'm still not sure what happened. The main actress is very good but this alone does not make a movie. It is basically a murder mystery without a great deal of mystery. I didn't find anything interesting about the couple's relationship; in fact it was a bag of cliches. I did like the Alpine scenery and the acting. Aspect of the forensic medicine were not convincing. I recommend skipping this film. A disappointment.

Although this is a somewhat flawed documentary, it's a pretty good introduction to the subject of porn addiction.

The problem with the film is it wastes time with "person on the street" interviews which don't add anything of substance. I should add that I watched this on Plex, and their platform totally screwed up the subtitles, so I have no idea what the Germans and Finns were saying. But most of the movie is interviews with addiction health professionals, some graphics, and there's a case study of a couple. The case study is poignant and the porn widow, who is interviewed at length, is adorable. The graphics could use some work.

There is no porn in the film. It's not a documentary of the porn industry; rather, it's a documentary about addiction. So, the film would be appropriate in a high school health education class. It's also not religious; I don't know how some reviewers interpreted that from the film.

I watched this film partly because I'm a health professional, partly because I'm a radfem anti-porn activist, and partly because I'm a big Metallica fan. I enjoyed listening to the sound of James' voice, and the experience of hearing him critique the diagnostic manual.

I'd like to suggest the filmmaker consider editing this a bit, and it could be used for CE credits.

An arrangement with a surrogate is a civil matter. Someone reneges, this is not a crime. It is a violation of contract perhaps, that could result in a lawsuit. No way would the FBI be involved in this case. An unborn child is not an American citizen. There's also no sympathy for the exploited 19 year old foreigner. I'm not even sure it's legal to hire a teenager to be your surrogate. I wonder about the moral perspective of whoever wrote this story. And someone punches someone in the face but no charges are filed because the victim feels sorry for the perpetrator who he doesn't even know? Also I'm sorry but although I liked Luke Kleintank in the Man in the High Castle he is not believable in this role.

I wasn't expecting much, but this movie is great! It's a smart comedy. The film is clearly feminist, but it is NOT "preachy" as some other reviewer complained. Yes, there is one speech, but it's not made by a Barbie. It fits into the story.

The film mines the Barbie and Ken existence of "life" as a plastic doll for comedic effect, with some song and dance sequences as a bonus. But it's mainly about an existential crisis for the main Barbie (Margot Robbie), who travels to the "Real World" to resolve her crisis. Events in both the "Real World" and the Barbie world drive the plot, which concerns the collision between the ideal and the real. The dramatic conflict centers on the contradiction between the ideal world of the Barbies and the disappointing, yet also tempting, reality of our world--the Real World. I thought the last scene was perfect and perhaps slyly politically incorrect. You can judge for yourself. I only didn't like the music played over the end credits. The song and dance numbers in the film were entertaining though.

I read the Paul Gallico book upon which it is based about 45 years ago. I thought the book was somewhat meh (but maybe I was too young for it). I think this film is an improvement. It's part heartwarming comedy/drama, part biting social satire.

The title character is a cleaning lady in 1950s London. Her husband disappeared in WWII. She cleans the homes of the bourgeoisie, and one day sees a Dior dress in the closet of one of her clients. She is seized with a desire to have a little bit of luxury in her drab life, and plots to go to Paris to get a Dior dress of her own. What happens along the way illuminates facets of French and British society. It's all portrayed for entertaining effect, though. The performances are spot on. Highly recommended.

This is a poignant movie but I think it probably worked better as a short story, which I think was the original format. It's slow moving and there aren't any real surprises. It has literary touches such as irony and a subtle repeating motif. It's a grim indictment of Irish poverty. It has a classic short story format; there's a main character and we get to know her during an episode in her life. There isn't a plot per se but rather interactions between characters in a few settings. It's mostly in Gaelic with subtitles, although it's partly in English and these lines are also subtitled. Subtle gestures in the film are evocative of the themes.

I feel compelled to write this after the Oscars sweep. It's nice that Michelle Yeoh won an Oscar. As for the movie--I continue to be mystified. It starts out by introducing the main and supporting characters. Yeoh's character is the owner of a laundromat and she hasn't been keeping up with her taxes. She wants to divorce her husband. It seemed unpleasant but I kept watching, expecting a family drama of some sort. Then Yeoh and her family go to the IRS office and what could be more boring than that? Then there's a sharp twist, as it turns into a supernatural Kung Fu movie. A character starts beating up innocent people in the IRS office and I found that to be repellent, as the character is supposed to be one of the good guys. I guess it's ok to not pay your taxes and to beat up innocent people. At this point I stopped watching, but I've seen various clips from the rest of the film. It's a lot of over-the-top costumes. The overall impression I had is that this film is psychotic. I'm giving it five stars for the cast, otherwise it would be one star.

See this film in a theater for the beautiful landscapes and cinematography.

The plot revolves around the sudden end of a friendship. The friend who ends the friendship is deeply depressed but still goes through the social motions of pub drinking and playing the violin. The spurned friend is deeply hurt and perhaps humiliated. They both act out their feelings of helplessness and loss of control in ways that are visually shocking. They are unable to escape each other because they live on an island off of Ireland, in a claustrophobic small town culture despite the stunning ocean vistas. MIrroring their enmeshed relationship and escalating hostility is the Irish Civil War in the background. A supporting cast of characters include a sort of village idiot with secrets, the spurned friend's sister who is a voice of reason, a vicious police officer, and a mysterious elder, witch-like woman (the Banshee?). Is the film a psychological drama or a metaphor?

This not a documentary about ocelots or about the Amazon, as some other reviewers noted. It's a story about a damaged man who becomes a volunteer at a wildlife rescue and rehabilitation center in Peru order to try to find meaning and redemption. He is very young and so is the scientist he's working for. We see every aspect of his journey, and I mean every aspect. It occurred to me the previous generation would never have made this movie, but growing up with social media has made young people more comfortable with exposing themselves. The movie is raw and emotional. It is an intense look at PTSD. As a mental health professional, I cringed at the naive notion that raising an ocelot kitten to then release it into the jungle, especially a violent place like the Amazon rainforest, would be an appropriate treatment program for PTSD. Anyway, the movie is riveting for its intensity, and the ocelots are adorable. We also get to see much of the other native wildlife. As a nature lover and a mental health professional I enjoyed this movie on a number of levels.

This is an interesting, if somewhat perplexing and slow-moving film.

The main character appears to be trying to eat himself to death. As the story goes along, more characters are introduced and there are some surprises. The grief and guilt underlying the main character's death-by-calories behavior becomes more apparent and understandable. However, despite Brendan Fraser's phenomenal performance, I wasn't sure I found his character believable.

The tie-in with Melville's novel was the most interesting part of the film. The ending was somewhat abrupt, however, and I would have liked to hear more of what the Sadie Sink character had been thinking.

Overall, this film is worth seeing for the performances, and because it's not usual Hollywood fare.

So my first review was deleted. I'm pretty sure I didn't break any of the rules. I've been watching SVU since it began in the 90s, on and off. After a great beginning it's had ups and downs over the years. There was a period of time in the 00s when it was too graphic. Some of the plots got recycled. But I kept watching it because it was so female-centric. Don't get me wrong; I love Ice-T and I loved Chris Meloni as Elliot Stabler, and Raul Esparza and even the Mayhem guy in the beginning. But even before Mariska Hargitay became the unequivocal star and Rollins became a regular the show was always feminist. It informed viewers and spoke up for victims. Unfortunately the show seems to have gone off the rails. This episode and one or two others have shown that it is no longer a feminist show. Thus I have stopped watching it for good.

I thought a lot about giving this movie a 10 star rating because I rarely give them (see my other reviews if you don't believe me). Even though I've read the book upon which the film is based, as well as the original New York Times articles, the movie was still riveting. It was faithful to the facts and used sensitivity in showing the effects of sexual assault. In fact after watching it I thought about how many films are exploitive in that regard but this one was not. You could take a 13-year-old to this movie. The performances were outstanding, particularly Carey Mulligan. I'm puzzled how some other reviewers thought it was "too long." It's shorter than a lot of movies are these days and I don't think it could have been any shorter. In fact it did omit many scenes from the book. What it did do was portray the youth and innocence of some of the victims, which is something that can be done in a movie but is harder to do in a book. Let's hope it brings new awareness.

This show has been controversial for its violence. I did not find the violence offensive; it's no worse than some Scorsese movies. The movie is, however, heartbreaking at times. It's also tedious in the beginning and takes a little time to get suspenseful. I found much of it to be gripping and dramatic. The behaviors of the main characters are believable and some are sympathetic. The show's flaws are its lack of originality (same premise as so many films that are all ultimately based on the 1920s short story "The Most Dangerous Game") and the atrocious dubbing. The streaming service that shall not be named thinks its subscribers are illiterates. They should have left it in the original Korean with subtitles.

This was highly recommended by some people, so I gave it a try. I'll be honest, sitcom is not my favorite genre. But there have been some classic sitcoms with characters who were friends or at least polite to each other and whom you cared about, and even sitcoms with something important to say. After the first few episodes, which had some funny scenes, I began to realize that a couple of the characters snipe at each other and no one is really friends with anyone else. The character of the principal is a horrible person who engages in sexual harassment and borderline fraud/financial mismanagement. This would have been interesting in a police show with a resolution but kind of weird in a sitcom. There's a recurring theme about how schools are underfunded, but meanwhile, teachers leave their classrooms or engage in inappropriate gossip with each other in front of elementary school students. It was not fun to watch and I'm passing on the rest of the season(s).

I can't say that the plot premise was original, but perhaps that was the point. The movie is about storytelling and fantasy, and riffs on 1001 Nights among other classics. The relationship between the scholar and the djinn is poignant, although it takes some time to develop. The movie is memorable for the kind of costumes and characters one would expect in a George Miller film. I didn't feel like there was a common thread in the stories, unless I missed something. I enjoyed the setting in Istanbul where I used to live and the fact they actually spoke Turkish and other languages at times. Overall a mostly well made film that I enjoyed.

I usually try to watch something all the way through before reviewing it. Amazingly, within a few minutes of this show beginning, it demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Tolkien's Elves and Tolkien's literary style. Tolkien imagined the Elves as a species more pure than humans--flawed, but not in the petty ways that humans are flawed. Tolkien's diction varies from the English of turn of the 20th century England (Hobbits) to a 17th-18th century English (Elves). Amazon's Elves act like contemporary humans and aside from fake English accents do not talk like Tolkien's Elves at all. It's like Hollywood lives in a bubble or should I say a vacuum. It's like they cannot imagine that Tolkien's fans actually love the books partly for the language, and also for their depiction of an ancient world in which people (and Elves) were different from contemporary humans. I felt insulted and condescended to.

Not as good as "Get Out," but it makes more sense than "Us." The film definitely held my attention; it's a trippy ride. It mocks the exhibitionism, sensationalism and exploitation of entertainment culture. The underlying theme is that make believe and reality--especially the tooth-and-claw reality of nature--don't mix. I especially liked the horse theme. Horses in particular need careful care; they will respond to you the way you treat them.

This movie is not a satire of politicians. It's a movie about men who blame women--or in this case, a girl--for their failures. The movie isn't about Tracy Flick. It's an acid portrait of male failure. The movie has not really aged well because today statutory rape doesn't go over that well as a plot device. The parody portrait of the victim is unsettling. All of the female characters are negative. It's not that it's a misogynist film; rather, t's a misanthropic film. It's well made but I would not call this an entertaining movie.

I saw this movie again after a few decades. There are a lot of movies from past eras that don't hold up over time, but this one does. It's just as suspenseful as it was in 1975. But the best reason to watch it is Robert Shaw's performance. You hardly ever see those type of personalities in movies anymore.

I was at one time a journalist. Journalists objectively explore subjects. I see from his CV here on IMDb that Kamau Bell used to have a show called "Totally Biased." That would be a good title for this show also. I guess there are some people who are less interested in learning something new than they are in wallowing in their own paranoia and self-righteousness.

This show is a great idea. Unfortunately, the host is in over his head. Instead of just narrating the history, culture and food of the places he visits, he inserts himself into the story. It's the self-obsession that is typical of the millennial generation.

I'm watching an episode in France, and McCoy butchers the French language, which is shocking considering that he is a sommelier. He makes aggrieved political remarks. He talks on and on about himself. It's the qualities that are so grating to people my age, the opinionating without any expertise, the self absorption, the grievance obsession and the identity obsession. McCoy could take a page from Stanley Tucci, who doesn't go on about how Italian he is. He narrates the history, lets the chefs talk about what they're doing, and compliments the food.

I don't understand what people think is so great about this movie. It's well done, but in all honesty I thought it was trite and shallow. The main character is insecure and not happy with herself, and it's not fun to watch this for two hours.

A sweet romance of sorts that doesn't really bear much resemblance to reality but's enjoyable all the same. A bit too long. It's rather fanciful that a 15 year old tv actor is a businessman, although I suppose anything is possible. Even though I didn't like the female lead, I sympathized with her. I liked the political incorrectness of the romance. It seems to have been written by someone who grew up in that neighborhood. I appreciated the 70s nostalgia, although I'm from the East Coast.

I saw a previous documentary about Attica that was pretty good; this one is far more brutal.

This film goes over the events as if it's a daily newsreel, with every detail about each day's events and the negotiations. I have to admit that part began to get a bit tedious. The footage from the police assault on the prison includes many photos of blood-drenched bodies and the various kinds of brutalization and torture that were inflicted on the inmates AFTER the authorities gained control of the prison. Throughout, the film intersperses interviews with former inmates, observers, children and widows of the guards, and one former National Guardsman.

It's a difficult but necessary film. I am puzzled by a couple of reviews on this site claiming it's "one-sided." I don't know what those people are talking about. The event was a mass murder by the government. The fact no one from the government was ever prosecuted is a stain on our country. Money from a lawsuit isn't enough.

I kept trying to figure out why I wasn't liking this movie when everyone seems to have loved it. Well, first of all what decade was this supposed to take place in, because abusing students kind of became unacceptable by the 1990s and they're using cell phones. Secondly, I was expecting a comeuppance. Wasn't that the meaning of the title? There is a kind of a one-uppance, but basically by the end the hero has totally bought into the torturer's worldview. I didn't think that was believable either. He left, ratted out the creep and then goes on to play in his band? No one would do that. In real life he would have just transferred to Berklee. The film is fast paced though and exciting in parts so I'm giving it a 6.