Ditzy-Gypsy

I have read through a couple of dozen reviews, and I have noticed that many of the positive reviews are accusing the bad reviews of only having watched 1, 2, or 3 episodes. Well, I watched ALL the episodes. I even rewatched some of them to make sure I wasn't confused and annoyed because I had dozed off one too many times during the previous episodes. This show wastes more time on stupid phone calls, unnecessary voice mail message to people who aren't even characters until the very, very end, and unnecessary and dull attempts at character development that are irrelevant, than it manages to provide half decent entertainment. How many episodes did we have to spend on the ridiculous floating space lady and her crazy secret girlfriend trying to contact her and some weird static "Wajo Wajo" message that is never decently explained? I groaned and wanted to FF (but didn't) every time we had to check in on those useless people. You will struggle to stay awake and give a crap about these two characters who, well, you don't even give a crap about, because they aren't interesting or important enough to care about during something as terrifying, shocking, and incredible as an alien invasion. And the kids fighting...for how long? Waste of time. The soldier driving around the desert? More time wasted on nothing. This WHOLE season could've been done in two episodes. This was only good for putting me, a person with debilitating insomnia, to sleep. A sci-fi show can definitely be cerebral, but that doesn't mean it has to be tedious, slow, and boring. This has crappy pacing, giant knowledge and plot holes, hours of wasted time spent on nothing, and terrible writing trying to be disguised as clever and interesting.

And NO, I did not give this a poor review, so I could give Foundation a high score. That's another falsehood being spread in these reviews. I hated Foundation, too. I'll tell you what IS good sci-fi, though: For All Mankind. And also Extrapolations is excellent (don't get hung up on the message if you are opposed to the idea of climate change; just take it in as good, entertaining, well-done science FICTION). But do not bother with this tripe. I cannot believe anyone actually likes it. They probably just know someone who is in it...because no one has ever heard of anyone in this show except for Sam Neill, who is hardly in it, anyhow. I also do like Golshifteh Farahani, but this show just doesn't do her presence and skills justice. Just watch something else. You'll be so glad you did.

If you go into this with a mindset that you are being preached at, or, heaven forbid, educated, you probably won't enjoy it. If you don't believe global warming is a thing, or you don't fully understand it, like I admit that I don't, then think of it as science fiction. It is well-acted, well-scripted, realistic, and highly entertaining. It does NOT leave you feeling depressed like The Day After Tomorrow. If you truly have an open mind to being entertained, you will be invested in the characters and their world. It is not your world. And because it isn't your world, just like Star Trek isn't, you will want to know what is going to happen in the next episode. You can't be entertained by anything, especially in sci-fi, if you have a closed mind and refuse to suspend disbelief. Just treat this the same way as Black Mirror or Silo. If you still say you're not entertained, then you either don't care for alternate universe/near future type sci-fi, or you're just being obstinate, because this story is about a world where the climate has gone crazy and the greedy and powerful are just fine with that crazy. That is only part of the story, though. This isn't a documentary. You COULD learn some things, but there's nothing wrong with that. Even Star Trek teaches us that there is a better way for us to live where everyone can thrive, and it requires setting aside greed and selfishness. Extrapolations is simply a well-done series. And it is definitely not depressing. Any review that expresses any similarities between TDAT and this program is quite likely someone who didn't finish watching this series. I watched the entire series. I love sci-fi. And this is an excellent sci-fi series.

I like this show, but I stopped watching halfway through season 3 (you can probably guess why). This episode would've been good, but it was dumb and irritating because the writing was very, very VERY flawed. The whole story falls apart because of this glaring mistake, since that bad guy would never have been able to enter Canada unless the women guard was Canadian (he couldn't find his passport, and so we would NEVER let him in). She isn't a Canadian border guard.. More than once they actually show and say that the US lets people OUT at the border and they just roll on into Canada. The guard who gets shot at the border crossing where the bad guy is trying to get to Montreal, is a US border guard (wrong), and then Jess comments to the other female guard who is connected to the bad guy that she was going to let the guy leave the US without a search and then let him back in. That's not how it works. Canada decides who comes into Canada. Just like the US does for the US. So the whole scheme between bad guy and border guard lady could never be a scheme. This is not a case of suspension of disbelief. It is a case of only an idiot would be able to enjoy the episode. How could they make such an absurd writing mistake? Who decided that was good writing? Have they ever travelled anywhere outside of their American bubble and crossed the border? Please either fire them or educate them, if the means to do so actually even exists down there.

Everyone knows the Popish Plot was a fabricated story. Cannot believe they'd make a movie about a real event, the fire, and use an obvious fake story to try to "enhance" it. Ugh.

Unlike a train wreck, you CAN tear your eyes away. The acting and casting is horrible. Why would someone spend money and time making this? They must have money to burn. So bad. Do not watch.

Far better than Walk the Line where no one looked or sounded like the people they were playing. And Johnny Cash doesn't like he's having a mini stroke or seizure when he starts a song. Much better storyline too.

Terrible acting, plot, direction, music. It's even terrible as a fantasy as there is nothing appealing about it. Yes, you sure can compare it to 50 Shades, but just like that movie, absolutely NO ONE can say that it is a good movie. There is something deeply wrong and cognitively underdeveloped with anyone who uses the word "good" for this movie or the awful 50 Shades franchise. Bad everything. And now there's a sequel of more bad everything being made. What a waste.

I'm appalled at the lack of intellect and compassion in some of these reviews. The key to this woman's story is that she would be considered a sex-trafficked CHILD abused by predators now (now that we are more enlightened) if she was going through this in 2019 instead of 2004. So not only did she make something of herself intellectually while incarcerated (and in spite of suffering from FAS), but she also grew emotionally, spiritually, and socially. THAT is why mercy is required for this case. She was a child. The ignorance on this review page is astounding. And the "it wasn't exciting enough" comments make me wonder why anyone expecting an action movie out of a documentary would then choose to watch a documentary instead of an action movie,

Good to see a little light shining on the massive problem that is going on in that country and the dirty plays that are made to try to get around the law, like staking out courthouses by institutions like ICE. Hopefully things will change for the better there, and this episode showed that if people with power make a stand, there can still be some hope.

Bios are my favourite movie genre. I'd already seen the movie with Loni and Arnold many years ago, and while it was a bit glib and made-forTV-ish, at least the acting was ok. The acting in this makeshift movie is almost comical. It's so bad. I think the awfully-written dialogue probably doesn't help, either. The argument scene at the coroner's office has got to be the worst scene I've ever seen. I gave this movie a 3. I was being generous. Yikes.

Not funny. Not interesting. What's up with all the irresponsible, junior high behaviour? The drug use was ridiculous. Grow up, and I'm not talking about pot-I'm referring to the kind of stuff that has crap in it that is killing people daily right now. Was this written by13 year olds or just grown up losers? I don't know which was worse, "How to Be Single" or this cowpie. Man, New York young adults are boring, irresponsible, puerile morons if these two movies are any sort of accurate representation. Netflix can start putting up good movies again anytime now. What a waste of time this was. And I quite like Gina Rodriquez. Not in this, though.

I don't understand how the abortion issue got entangled in a review of this movie about legal equality between men and women. This is not about abortion. It is about Ruth Bader Ginsberg's life from the day she began attending Harvard. Her husband was also attending. They had a baby. They struggled with serious health issues and they stood by each other. There was no bra burning (not that it isn't a good thing; I certainly think they're evil inventions!). No abortion issues. It was a beautiful movie about the strength of family, her relationship with her daughter, her years at Rutgers, and the case that finally began some needed changes to backwards, outdated American laws, which was actually a case where a man was being discriminated against. It is not evil. RBG is not evil. There is nothing bad in this movie. There is only the telling of how her real career finally began many years after she had already passed the Bar and started working. It's just her story. And thankfully, she was strong enough and intelligent enough to start the ball rolling. I didn't care much for Jones before this, but I thought she did an excellent job in her role, and Armie Hammer supported her beautifully. It's a nice, non-evil biopic. My favourite kind of movie. I hope you take a chance on it and enjoy it as much as I did.

The bad reviews are all correct. The good ones are wrong. This is an awful movie.

I have seen the Lobster and The Killing of a Sacred Deer, but I did not realize that they were done by the same person who also did this movie until after I watched this movie. Had I known that, I wouldn't have watched this movie.

I watched a DVD screener on a stresming site, and I'm very glad that I didn't pay for it; not even through Netflix.

This is not a comedy. If this made you laugh, well then, anything will make you laugh, and I wouldn't want to be friends with a person who literally doesn't know what comedy, or even good dark comedy, is,

I'm starting to think Rachel Weisz really just wants to be a porn star. She's about as sexy as a BIG old tree stump, but she keeps going for these super creepy-trashy character roles, instead of sticking to things like Denial, which had meaning and was based on a true story and a real character. Her hair always looks dirty, and she always sounds like she has a cold.

I know this movie is trying to pretend to be clever and highbrow about having this "deep" message, that actually isn't deep, and that message is quite simply that what you think is good is actually bad, and what you think is bad is actually good blah blah blah. Wow that's profound. It fails so miserably at cleverly and humorously delivering that message that you don't know if the ending is kinky or creepy or sad or ehat. Most people who actually make it all the way through the movie, rewind the ending two or three times to make sure they are seeing the ending. And then you sit there and say "Well, what was the ending?"

And the scenery is nice, because it's England, but you can't see anything in the windowless or nighttime candle-lit areas, because I think they actually really only used candles for camera lighting, so most of it is just dark with flickering lights and shadows.

I didn't care about any of the characters. They were shallow, and the only thing that they exhibited was selfishness; nothing else, because even when they were supposed to be trying to care, they just didn't pull it off I had no sympathy for them. The romping in the forest wasn't cute or funny, it was just stupid. The food scenes were gross; the bedroom scenes were icky and ridiculous (but not in the way that makes you laugh because it's a comedy). I couldn't tell the men apart, because their wigs and exaggerated make up made them all look like the same person, so I didn't know who was whom half the time.

And gee, Collin Farrell missed his chance to be in a third one of the pieces of crap that this guy puts out. Or maybe he finally realized what a mistake he made twice over by being in both The Lobster and The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

Don't waste any of your precious minutes on earth watching any of these three movies. And if you really, really have nothing to, do make sure you watch for free, like I did.

If I had given up because it was a tiny bit slower than the pace I was expecting up until about 3/4 of the way through the first episode, I'd have missed some fantastic entertainment. It was probably only slow to me because I'd just finished watching the movie about Cleveland mobster, Danny Greene, so my pulse was still pounding a bit. (I tend to really like biographical stories). This is a great story full of some really unexpected twists and very real and flawed characters who just pull you into the story even more. I loved it. The actors are not known to me --I'm in western Canada-- but that doesn't mean anything, because I usually forget the actors and only remember their characters if they've done a good job (plus I'm kind of ditzy with names). And they did an incredible job. If it were a regular TV show, I'd probably go and get cable again (I mostly rely on books and movies lately). Thank you to my friend, KJ, for insisting I watch it.