Grjas

...that normally wouldn't be distributed as it wasn't about American soldiers. And in fact it wasn't distributed until Netflix picked up and some of the smarter raters highlighted it. Nicely done Netflix.

Based on a true story about an Irish peacekeeping mission in the Congo under the UN flag in the early 60's where the military is hung out to dry. A time where the UN was focused on legitimacy while the world was focused on the cold war.

Solid acting, good script, reasonable cinematography. This is not a high budget thriller, or, thankfully Hollywood propaganda, hype or horse----, but a reasonable telling of a true and fascinating story that encourages you to read the full facts on what actually happened.

Mindless violent crap. Nice cinematography, lots of loud explosions. Little that resembles a plot. Is this what passes for a good movie in mainstream Hollywood these days?

Despite being skeptical after watching the ads, i decided to give this a try after the high ratings and my enjoyment of at least The second mad max film from the early eighties. It had wit, dialogue and a semblance of plot to go with the violence.

Nothing in this excuse for a movie to resemble Road Warrior. Cartoonish characters, silly masks, non-stop explosions, pointless plot. Some of the scenes were filmed well I guess, so there's that. But not enough to keep me going through this drivel.

A 14 year old boys' movie I guess.

Great acting, directing, plot, and score. You can't ask for anything more. Not unusual for a Ridley Scott movie.

This is quite a long movie at almost 2.5 hours and may make you wonder how they can keep a "marooned" plot entertaining throughout. They do through a combination of plot twists, wit, some interesting science, parallel plots etc. And a great acting job by Damon

It's a pleasure to see a movie that doesn't have to veer into excessive violence, profanity, nudity, flag waving, moralizing, or maudlin dialogue to be "entertaining".

Mainstream Hollywood actually can make a good move on occasion. And this is a very good one....by an old, accomplished hand.

It's interesting to see the street scenes, the apartments, the roadways and the buses in postwar Rome. Those scenes alone make the movie worth watching.

But that's about it.

The plot is minimalistic, the acting is passable, the pace is very slow, and the soundtrack is poor. There is some suspense initially in the movie, but when you realize that nothing really happens, the suspense rapidly falls away, while the drudgery continues.

I have certainly seen worse movies than this over the years- it's not bad, just boring, very slow moving and somewhat pointless- but seeing reviewers claim it's one of the best of all time is beyond bizarre.

I'm beginning to conclude that if a movie is dark, depressing, and soulless, it will resonate well with the so called "learned reviewers". Personally, I'd prefer some content.

This is about as paint by numbers a Hollywood movie as I have seen in a while. The plot summary did seem bizarre- top end chef converts to a food truck- but given the reviews we thought we'd try it. But yes the plot is as bad as the premise.

The acting is over the top, the "jokes" are fairly predictable and the plot is non-sensical. This seemed to be the year of chef movies and we saw 4 of them. This was by far the worst.

I know tastes differ, but I'm not sure what makes this movie popular. May be ugly fat guy gets hot woman? Who knows. I gave up on it well before it ended.

If there is a better TV show out there, I have yet to find it.

It's very rare to find a movie that combines great plots, excellent dialogue, superior acting, great cinematography, good music while providing a range of emotions from hilarity to fear. It's even rarer to find it in a TV show that through the first three seasons has lost none of its originality.

To do this at the same time as keeping strong links to the original books is inspirational. Making a 100 year old book series sing in the modern era is quite a feat.

Oh yes and the frequent artistic shots of London have me longing for a return to the city. Season 3 in 3 weeks here. Can't wait.

I generally like cop buddy films, Sandra Bulloch and quite a few chick films. In a house full of women, the latter is a necessity.

But this movie was a travesty. Sure the plot was lame - consistent with most of these types of films- there was nothing particularly new or innovative in the plot, acting, writing or filming which again is nothing new from Hollywood.

But what sets this movie apart is how dreadful the dialogue is. Who in God's name writes this tripe? I can only assume it's the son or daughter of one of the leads, as I haven't heard lines this bad since grade school.

Fortunately, unlike other reviewers, I watched this from home and could happily tune out in the bad parts.. I.e. Most of the movie.

Not the worst Christmas movie I have ever seen, but... I have no idea why this movie is so well ranked. It's really campy, has virtually no plot, the acting is way over the top and frankly really bad (I wondered when I saw Darren McGavin as the dad), and it may have the most irritating narrator..ever.

I guess it's "nostalgic" because it's set in the 40's, but if you want 40"s nostalgia there are a ton of well acted xmas movies from the 40's and 50's (bishops wife, white Christmas, miracle on 54th st, a Christmas carol etc, etc).

Movies like anything are personal choice, and I can generally understand why some movies I don't like are very well rated (e.g It's a wonderful life). But this one is a total puzzle. There is nothing particularly redeeming about this treacle. It looked bad from the trailers and the photos but I watched it due to the IMDb and rotten tomato ratings. Lesson learned i guess. As my wife says, it's just plain " lame".

This in an excellent movie. The plot is engaging, the acting is excellent, the pace is riveting, the character development is strong, the editing and cinematography is exceptional and the mood captures the 70's nicely.

Best of all its true, AND, shockingly, accurately portrayed.

This is much more than a Formula 1 movie. It's a study in the rivalry of polar opposites, hyper competitiveness, 70's excess and winning above everything.

There are few movies that have so many elements working well together. Sure there are a few reviewers who are self-described Formula 1 "aficionados" that lament the racing scenes. Not sure why; I found them riveting. But whatever.

I'm more interested in Niki Lauda's views-

"This story was very accurately depicted....I wish James Hunt could have seen Rush because he would have enjoyed it."

A true story told....truly. What a concept. Enjoy the ride. It's intoxicating.

There are some things to like about the movie. Good special effects, interesting though convoluted plot, a pretty good villain, nice redesign of the ship, plus the friction between Spock and Kirk is a nice little twist.

But good lord, a good premise is run aground by the puerile dialogue and spotty acting. Who the hell wrote this script? The bridge crew (other than Spock) sound like cardboard cutouts in a high school play. And Pine as Kirk this time was awful. GQ looks and collagen lips are not enough to cut it. It's hard to believe this guy has the brains and temperament to captain a garbage scow much less a starship. Of course only Gen Y'ers are likely to believe the premise that a group of 20 somethings just out of school would be running the ship.

Pity because with reasonable acting and dialogue, the movie could have been pretty darn good.

This was an outstanding movie that combines solid acting, great photography, outstanding special effects and an interesting plot line. I was puzzled at how the director could make a movie about a boy and a tiger in a boat interesting, but he does that in spades.

It is especially interesting to try to determine which scenes with the tiger are real and which are Cgi. Other than looking closely at the eyes, it is often hard to determine. The transitions between real and artificial are so seamless, the tiger feels real throughout.

The ending as well is something special and leaves room for your own interpretation.

Highly recommended.

Yes Christopher Walken was very good. Showed great range for an actor too often type cast in shallow, black hat roles. This performance- and my wife's night to pick- were the reasons I watched the movie.

Unfortunately he's not on screen long enough to cut through the treacle. This is certainly one of the most overwrought soapy movies I have seen in years, but I guess I usually know the story lines well enough to avoid them. Plot, character development, interesting dialogue...sprinkled here and there but largely lacking. This movie is solely about emotion.

As well, there's something Woody Allenish about this movie, though I can't put my finger on it. I suppose that's good if you like Woody Allen. I don't.

In a year of disappointing movies, I suppose this is just another. For both me and my wife.

Not a good year for movies. So this one was a pleasant surprise. Excellent acting, intriguing plot, nicely filmed and at times unpredictable. Tricky plot to pull off without being cynical or sugar sweet. The actors, writers and director do their parts.

I was particular impressed at the quality of acting. I thought Cooper was a lightweight and Lawrence a one trick pony. Far from it.

The range shown in this movie is dramatic, not only by Lawrence but also Cooper. Hopefully Hollywood doesn't waste popular movie stars...that can actually act.

Well worth seeing.

Interesting premise, solid acting, good cinematography. The pieces are all there. And as a mini -series, it might have worked. But why write a novel in an era of comic books?

Director Derek Cianfrance approached this movie like a bored student with a checklist and a Tablet. Infidelity. Check. Unemployment blues. Check. Orphaned kids. Check. Broken families. Check. Depression, corruption, gun violence, jail, bank robbery, financial challenges, racial tension, single mothers, political cynicism, drug culture, teen disillusionment.... All checks. Oops forgot the Tats. Double check. Throw in abortion, gay rights and space aliens and all the issues of the age would have been covered in 2 minute sound bites.

How do you cover so many topics well in one movie. Umm, Derek, you don't.

Kudos to the director in a McMovie age for trying to do something different. But at the end of the day, the movie was scattered, shallow and unsatisfying. And for me, 2 hours and 20 minutes not well spent.