LongTimeMovieLover

Everyone's giving Danielle Macdonald rave reviews, which she deserves, playing with a sweet naivety. But, to me, Ólafur Darri Ólafsson steals every scene he's in. He's low key, ominous and creepy at the same time.

I can't say that that this series is great, but it's worth the time devoted to the series and it keeps you interested through the series set. Not all series are worth the investment, but this one is. A man get amnesia and people are trying to kill him and he does not know why. The audience learns who he is in real time with him. It's a collage of a few different movies, but it's well done.

This is dark, melancholic, and gritty, exactly as it should be. A Roman Polanski work, such as Kubrick, it has his trademark eerie and visceral feel, and it works perfectly, or almost perfectly.

A Playboy production brings negative bias to what is an era for Playboy into the broader arts at a very high level. That is, someone might think it's some form of a X-rated type movie, but it's not. It's a classic expression. Plus, it choreographed by experts in sword-fight, and pre-computers reality. The score is as perfect as probably could be: eerie and strange.

This is a fantastic expression of MacBeth, and must-see for literary experts and enthusiasts.

This movie was engaging for me because it interplays an anti-hero who cites to Shakespeare as he quips through his actions. Sometimes citing for his action and sometimes citing for the other guy's action.

I found myself stopping the video and looking up the citation for context from the Shakespearean works. This is fun for a literary intellectual, or want-to-be.

Moreover, the movie is made more interesting by its somewhat Orwellian pre-Covid context.

Overall, well acted, although I couldn't get over Natalie Portman's accent, which just sounded off to me, but maybe it's a dialect....

In any case, this movie is refreshing in that it has a literary Count of Monte Cristo feel to it, with depth of framework, and it's far better than vapid recent Marvel movies (except Venom I, my personal under-rated favorite).

First, let me get this out of the way. If you want to watch a focused masterpiece, watch Waterloo with Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer. It could have only been better (for me) if Steiger had a French accent. Second, if you want to watch a general scoping history of Napoleon, consider the excellent and approachable Napoleon series with Christian Clavier (with a French accent), Isabella Rossallini, John Malkovich and Gerard Depardieu. (Clavier is sometimes unfairly maligned when indeed he does a splendid job in my view.) There are other well-reputed less approachable versions, but these two are excellent.

Now, as this work, let's start with Napoleon. A boyishly handsome, philosophically grounded (Napoleonic Code), egotistical, pugnacious genius, sometimes brooding sometimes loving, sometimes playing. That is, a strategically gifted, tactically trained, boyishly handsome, egotistical, passionate, lovable, fighting, moody, young genius.

I am sorry, but this character requires someone like a young Brando or Pacino. Phoenix simply cannot, no-way, pull it off. Way wrong. Crazy wrong. He does not have the range. He is a great actor only in a particular type of role, a crouching villainous Caesar or a depressive Joker. A melancholic low-key whispering introverted Napoleon does not work, and some form of delusion by Scott allowed or put Phoenix into this role. I can easily get past failure of boyish good looks and the way wrong age (and Napoleon's young age is part of the story itself). But I cannot get past whispering tone and failure of charisma, passion and charm. Napoleon seduced a lot of people in a lot of ways.

It's not Phoenix's fault he was miscast. Way miscast. Vanessa Kirby was fine and did her job. But, no one in this movie deserves any acting nominations. Take one common scene, being the "Will you shoot your emperor?" following Napoleon's escape from Elba and return to France, the other referenced Napoleons had timing, tension, and drama, here blah, nothing. Nothing! It's just bad. Really bad.

Nothing in this movie taught me anything, made me think, made me feel, or moved me in any way. Terribly unengaging. Even the couple attempts at comic relief (if there would have been any tension, which was devoid) it was misplaced and failed miserably.

Now, let's talk about the versions. This is the 2.5H version and there is another 4H version to be released by Apple+. Everything is a gimmick these days. Every streaming channel has one gem, but I'll suggest this work is inherently flawed by miscast Phoenix and more time to blend the scenes won't do it. In this 2.5H version, it's like a bunch of scenes without any context. We go from the French Revolution through the Reign of Terror through Napoleon's coup through Austerlitz through first defeat through Elba through return to France through Waterloo, through St. Helena. In 2.5H, even with the right actor who has engaging charisma and charm, it's too much ground. No character development whatsoever. None. Even in 4H it's like getting two bad suits for the price of one. It's just more of what's bad, which is miscast Phoenix in the titular role. I only understood the movie because I love and know the history. My wife and 86 year old father could not follow it, and my 19 year old daughter (somewhat tired from returning from college) dozed off a couple of times. No one liked the movie. And we even went out of our way to the IMAX because, well, it was Napoleon.

I almost forgot to mention the emasculation of Napoleon by Josephine, the jarring politically correct now-required social normalizing casting of extras, and the ending credits that count the dead but give no context for the concomitant social reforms.

Braveheart was historically all wrong, but it was still a great story with a wonderful score. This Napoleon is a bad story, and, even if Napoleon was a fictional character it was still bad. It's both a bad reflection of a real man, a grossly incomplete historical depiction, and a bad story poorly told no matter what.

Napoleon was loved, hated, admired and ridiculed, by many of the same people, at different times. He was, if nothing else, one of the greatest characters in the recorded history of mankind. To try to do it all fairly, with the wrong titular actor, is silly. Really silly. Delusively silly.

Sir Ridley's movie The Last Duel failed for a similar reason, and then he blames the audience. It's not the production or even perhaps the precise movie direction that is going wrong, it's that the story itself is not well-told. Perhaps it's time for him to teach his tactical craft to a young person with the right vision for the story expression.

I need to watch my Waterloo DVD again to get my head back to the right flavor of Napoleon the Great, not Napoleon the Whisperer.

Nothing good, new or better. A waste of my time and money.

I watched this after watching Amadeus, which was superior in every way.

This was brooding, slow, dark and you never really get engaged. You don't know who the villain is or where there story is going. Yes, it's a bit of a mystery, but it does not have a clean or clear story line. The acting is flat and brooding.

Moreover, there is no comic relief, so it gets tiresome. The music, such as it is, is beautiful, but it just does not one-two punch the emotions that great music is supposed to do. The music should draw out an emotion that is being adduced in the movie. Alas, without sufficient engagement it's all for naught. Forgettable movie; perhaps it will rekindle an interest in the music, otherwise, forgettable.

Overall, this movie was pleasant, but not engaging. The reason, in my view, is that the direction was average. Accordingly, C- on Direction. The visual production was fine, but everything yields to the Director. Eric's song had a very strange and unpleasant sound mix.

As to the casting, overall good job. I did not prefer Bardem as Triton, too clumsy, or Dumezweni as the Queen, too flat. McCarthy did a standout job as Ursula. Bailey fine as Ariel. The world-view cast worked well for this story, with a lot of different ethnicities for the world-wide body of water kingdom. Disney reconciled the difference in ethnicity between Eric and the Queen by making him adopted, which is okay.

Also, the pacing was off, sometimes too slow and sometimes too fast, understanding that the story needs some visuals that don't really move the story forward, although some of the CGI was less than stellar; that is, noticeable.

Overall, I can't say I loved it and I can't say I hated it. It was pleasant. This type of a movie really needs to be in the hands of a proven master for the genre, like a Spielberg. Particularly following a masterpiece animated version, the Director has to meet the task. Marshall does a good job, not a great job, a good job. This could have been a masterpiece, because all the piece were there, but I know it, if I feel it, but I never really was so engaged that I felt it. Perhaps there are so many political and operational constraints at Disney that he was constrained to what got produced as less than great, but he's the Director.

This is good, not great by any means, good.

Army of Darkness was a masterpiece. And you're not going to get that here, so give up hope on that one. No dark comedy or camp, no one classic one-liners. It's an average gore-fest with incidents of homage to the Evil Dead Series. Produced by Raimi and Campbell.

I loved AOD because it was so creative and clever. I'm not really a fan of general horror gore, so this didn't really do a thing for me. If you like gore and some suspense, great, but, if you like clever and campy like AOD, not here. It's actually like ED1 and ED2, which are gore fests. AOD (ED3) was in its own class.

If you want to watch fighting for 3H, beyond a rational setting, this is the movie to do it. I was well-produced, but it was almost exclusively fighting and shooting, mayhem for a long time, no police.

There was really not complexity to the story. I would give the story a 3 or 4, really, just nothing really there. However, because the action was good and I like Kineau Reeves, I gave it a 7/10.

Ian McShane is always fantastic, and Bill Skarsgard was a good arrogant villain. IP Man, Donnie Yen, was fine. The fight scenes were so long you could go to the bathroom and come back and it would still be going on, not missing much but more fighting.

I am not surprised about the high viewer ratings, but I am surprised by the high critics rating, because simply not a lot of story.

This is a dark comedy, better than Renfield, catching dark wit and gore much better. I didnt really care for Keri Russell casted as mom, lacked emotion and complexity. The character actor, Margo Martindale, the Park Ranger, always does a great job.

Having seen Elizabeth Banks interviewed, she's playful and can go out of the box, and I got the vibe that the movie reflected her personality. Not necessarily a great movie, but it was a fun romp for a get-away. Fun date movie...with a woman director just enough bait to convince a girlfriend it's a chick flick date movie and then have fun with it afterwards.

Looking forward to more from Elizabeth Banks.

The issue with this movie was it was not witty enough. If you're going to do camp, then do it, go all in. And, to do camp right, you need matching wit. The movie lacked wit, it's pretty much that simple. The dialogue could have been great with Raimi or Tarentino doing the writing. Cage does an Austin Powers finger to mouth move, cute, but okay. If you're a Cage fan, sorry, but this role could have been played equally well or better by a lot (I mean a lot) of other actors.

Renfield the superhero needs bugs for power, then saves society from the bad guys, of which he is part. That's pretty much it. They did not even make the decision as to whether Drac would be back, leaving the door open for v.2 or just Renfield v.2. There were some good scenes that I won't describe. I'm glad I saw in a theater to keep my undivided attention.

Some of the socio-psyco-babble satire was okay, but they seemed to be afraid to run with that, too, not knowing how far to go before the satire would be insulting. They should have called Seth MacFarlane, who does not care, and that is TV.

Basically a fairly good new premise for a new generation, but they didn't really bring it. If you're wondering...no, this is definitely not Army of Darkness or From Dusk to Dawn, either and both of which are infinitely superior. Those movies you want to see in a theater because they're such great movies, original and witty. This is good to see in the theater so you stay tuned in.

Looks like a priming to turn Renfield into the next super hero. But they weren't really sure, so they never seemed to commit. It was a good movie more because we're desperate for a good movie. Unless they run with it in a sequel to give it legs, just like most of the Marvel movies, ultimately forgettable.

Lizzo would have been fine, if she could act here. Christopher Lloyd was fine. However, Jack Black's persona is too specialized for this role. Instead of thinking "character" you think "Jack Black." A good word I saw was that it was "jarring." I agree. Jack Black may have a difficult time as a character actor. He should have won an Academy Award for School of Rock. It's like when you see Jim Carrey, you expect something immediately, the viewer is biased. A good character actor can be inserted in a role and do a great job with the role without the viewer thinking about the actor, but only the role. Lizzo and Jack Black are great, but it did not work here. I suppose I will get used to him if they keep the character....

At 3H, this movie is a slow burn. You need to be in the right mood, sort of relaxed and reflective. It keeps moving forward, but slowly and darkly. Not much comic relief, but there are no real tension points either. It moves slowly and consistently forward.

Some of the riddles are accessible, some less so. It is a character shift of sorts, so you also need to be free of the backstory dogma and allow that creative expression.

Overall, it was good. Not great, good. It's much better than a lot of available fluff and the production is credible. I don't think Patterson convinced me in the part, but he was not bad. Perhaps to grungy/millennial for me. My own view is that Christian Bale struck a balanced note of believable billionaire with enough masculinity and youth for a dutiful hobby without a lot of comic camp.

The Nolan versions are superior in my view, striking a better balance of action, development, comics, and storyline. But this good: a long, slow, dark, gritty tale for someone who likes the genre, with some time, in the mood, and willing to pay attention.

The first season was great! If Murray Bartlett does not win an award, it would really be too bad. Some of his expressions were so nuanced for very screwy situations, ala the scent at the table giving homosexual clues. I loved everything, although perhaps Molly Shannon did not fit for me as perfectly as some of the other characters. Also, Sydney Sweeney was wonderful as a droll and spoiled Gen Z. Generally well written, well cast, well scored and well directed. Just enough conflict and resolution. This may be more appealing for those of us who know people who fit into the roles or situations, which makes it more interesting, of course. It's not really simplistic, but a complex mix of 2022 rich people-type problems. Substance and nonsense. Like many of the HBO successes, this series is complex enough to watch more than one time. Kudos to Mr. White.

Mediocre at best. There's simply too much mediocre acting that it must be a bad directing. The power lines look like they're meant to be power lines. The sets look and feel like sets. The camera work feels like camera work. You're supposed to be so engaged that you forget that you're watching a movie, I never forgot, it always just felt like a movie, and I was watching it, not one with it. Even the music was stiff. Everything is trying so hard that it defeats itself.

Sure, it's clean and picturesque, but the story never engages and never grabs you're heart. Maybe it will grab me and then I'll watch it again. I think Game of Thrones ruined a lot of viewers, so superb. Lord of the Rings was great. The Hobbit was very good. This is just good, at best.

If you enjoy a well-made period-piece movie that is slow, heavy and brooding film, this is one for you.

In the search for El Dorado, we find how rationality and irrationality feed desire and hope, even if the hope is focused on selfish interest. Vice clothed in virtue feeding vice clothed in virtue, and with delusion on both sides of the spectrum. Sooner or later, vice feeds upon itself, and so it does here: death and madness. Innocence sacrificed. Rationality sacrificed. What could have been a very good life for many, sacrificed. The "what's really the point?" of human nature and the meaning of life.

A great movie for a thoughtful night, but it's slow, heavy and brooding. No real emotive action scenes. No comic relief of note. No Mozartian hopeful flutes coming through the cellos. If this movie makes you feel, it is through your head, so you need to be in the right frame of mind. And, it does not present a happy view.

My rating is because I don't find this film as entertainment, as such. It is more of a study of human nature, relationships, self-interests, and the meaning of life. Not to compare apples and an oranges, but other works do it with more entertainment value. Perhaps this work is a 10, but, for a forum as IMDB, that type of rating may imply a different type of entertainment quality. To me, this movie is more head than heart. That's why I will need to watch it again, to study it further, but that is a type of work. I study the subtle complexities and human nature lessons of Master Shakespeare, too, but that's fun. This, not so much.

I would like to give this movie a 10, simply because Tom Cruise brought back something great to cinema. He should receive accolades. Thank you, Tom Cruise.

Finally, a wonderful non-Marvel/Disney action movie; I am so tired of the entire tired Marvel eco-system. We really have to admire Tom Cruise for this accomplishment. And, what he has done for the Armed Services in creating interest for selfless service to the interests of the USA, superb. Thank you, Tom Cruise.

I love watching Tom Cruise in interviews. He's so intense and focused. It is a lesson in drive, determination, and mind over matter. Just exceptional. He's now the guy at the top of my "who would you like to have dinner with" list. I really admire him; he's my own age, and I am adjunct faculty at two universities, one of which I teach in a graduate master degree program in leadership.

Now, apart from the emotion of my deserved admiration for Tom Cruise and his stellar accomplishment, I think this movie was a great night night out at the theater. This reminded me of Ford v. Ferrari, a good story that exhilarates. Yet, all in, similarly, a bit forgettable and predictable in the story. That is, when I watch a movie, I reflect on whether the movie teaches me something, or draws out of me some unforgettable emotion. Does it change me, like reading a meaningful book. Consider all the life lessons taught in Godfather I and II, or the seminar one-liners of Jerry McGuire, or the original Top Gun.

So, notwithstanding the unbelievable accomplishment of the sets, and planes, and jets, being crazy great, as the overall movie goes, I give it an 8, because it still misses the character development and relies on the original more than it perhaps should do. Truly, I want to give this movie a 10, because emotions tell me to do it for Tom Cruise, but the movie is really an 8, all in. But go see it on the big screen, it's really great cinema. Thank you, Tom Cruise. Do it at the theater to support the movie-making that Tom Cruise is doing. Great cinema, and not Marvel.

Really, deeply and sincerely, thank you, Tom Cruise.

I wanted to like this movie. I really did. Anything novel and not Marvel. But, unfortunately, this movie was dark, slow and not engaging. It started off with the harsh power of humanity to endure hardship and to impose it, but then went flat with the story. Nothing to learn, no one to love or hate, nothing to make you a character. Not intending the ultimate insult, but perhaps it is: you never forget you're watching a movie. You don't become one with it. However, it could win an Academy award for the production or costumes, but none of that makes up for a dark, slow and non-engaging story.

This movie is great, not so much for the actual movie or production, but, rather, because of the message it conveys. The situational context. Hate repealed.

Dr. Hicks does a brilliant job philosophically analyzing Naziism without having the common bias that plagues objective thought. It does not follow a "Nazis are crazy" narrative, but reviews history through the lens that actually shows why what happened may have happened. This is a brilliant video. Not for the common and biased viewer. You have to be an pure intellectual.

Perhaps not Game of Thrones, but it's up there with Sopranos and all those series that know how to tell a story. Great character development, slowly exposing backgrounds. Excellent drama. The western genre is incidental, and, if anything, adds to the depth, by providing a refreshing ambiance in Montana, with the "new cowboy." Each episode is a well-told story. Superb.

If we categorize the small screen projects as hits and misses, this is a hit. There are a lot of the Netflix projects that simply don't work for one reason or another. This one is generally well-acted, well-written and well-produced/directed. The script never takes anything (killing, sex, conversation, etc.) too far in any direction, but it never feels that corners were cut in that regard. A viewer can get into the flow of it, and it engages. If you're not a sci fi type of viewer, then skip this of course; otherwise, if you're open to the genre or like sci fi, this is worthy of a view. Disney should have done this show; it's better than some of the Disney productions, and it stays in the family middle: in fact, as of late, it's a bit more Disney than Disney.

This was not a bad movie, but it was barely good. The problem is simply that it lacked the necessary emotional hook. It lacked character development. It didn't really teach anything. It didn't really make the audience love or hate. Too much battle, not enough hook. It was well played, but the screen writing and direction lacked the emotional tie and punch.

On first review, I have this an 8. But, it got better each time I watched it, and particularly considering it for vast mediocrity of so many other similar productions. The performances are excellent from an excellent casting. This is a superb series.

First, the acting subtlety of Jodie Comer was excellent, and perhaps she'll be nominated for an award. The rest of the acting was very good. Matt Damon did a good job, but his character was not overly complex. Casting otherwise was very good. Again casting Jodie Comer was excellent; the Ben Affleck/Matt Damon thing is a bit old. Second, the story-line from three perspectives was interesting, although far less distinct in perspective than I expected. Third, the tone, set and direction are all great and should get award nominations.

Also, as it seems to be generally for Ridley Scott, there is very little nudity, and where it occurs, it is distant or not the center of focus. It is no secret that the movie is centered on a rape. The rape is in-time; that is, not implied. However, although no rape is easy to watch, the scene is solely facial shots, so it is handled conservatively relatively (if that is a way to describe a rape scene); that is, without any nudity shown. The story message here is the juxtaposition of facial expressions, rather than gratuitous body parts..... By comparison, Game of Thrones/Rome/Tudors are more extreme.

As to any "political tone," the movie expresses the perennial points of injustice: the victim is legally incapacitated, the "insulted" husband has the legal standing, the system has favoritism, systemic corruption, the King is playing games with lives, God and good are expected to prevail, love is good and therefore supposed to make it okay, Evil has a self-justified perspective, etc.

Overall, it kept me interested as an overall watch because it is well done overall, but it's certainly no Gladiator, Braveheart, Godfather. Being sufficiently interested and entertained is not the same as being engaged and engulfed. Sometimes the musical score will do it (think Braveheart), but not here.

Set, direction, Cramer, 9.5, the rest 7.5-8. Thus, barely an 8, but not a 7. Still, 8 overall is very good, and it's a good pic for the theater.

It must be me. I love irreverent witty quips, particularly from Aliens (like Drax, too). Love the "older big brother" type of insults and Venom commentary. Venom is so much better than, eg, bland Captain Marvel. I was able to watch it multiple times and enjoy each time without it getting old. I think this is my favorite Marvel movie. It's the little things that made it great, even the little "whoa" for She-Venom, "That's the deal," "Most likely" and "Pile of heads" comments. Loved it. Way underappreciated.