Stoshie

I'm being factitious if it sounds like I an objecting to the language used in the film. This is obviously a made-for-TV movie, and not a feature film. IMDB says the Countries of Origin are Canada and Mexico, but the languages are English and German. Weird. IMDB also says it was filmed in Canada. I can only guess TV standards are different in Canada, as there is extensive use of foul language in the movie. Those words are skipped in the LMN version of the movie, both in the spoken word and the subtitles. But they are obvious in the context of the dialogue and in lip-reading the characters' words. I can't say for sure they would be allowed on Canadian TV, and if not, I wonder if a theatrical release was considered for the movie. I hope not; it would have been a complete flop.

The ending, which others have mentioned here, seemed incomplete, as if final scenes were missing to explain what happened, why, and what happened to the real bad guys. . But then, that was true throughout the film. Many subplots were left unanswered, and much of the action was haphazard and did not flow well, as if it were edited poorly. A better ending would have made the film somewhat bearable. As it was, if was bad even by Lifetime standards, even though it wasn't a Lifetime-produced movie. I know Razzies aren't awarded to TV movies, but if there were a category for them, this would have been a winner (so to speak).

This movie started out with some promise, then devolved into the silliest plot I've seen in a long time. I'm not sure how the actors could keep a straight face as they went through the motions (literally) that the script demanded. Over and over again.

The idea of a cult with seasonal rituals could be open to many interesting aspects, whether they be horror or drama. But this one just got more ridiculous as it went along. I mean, the scene in the garden at the end was pointless, and didn't flow in any way with the rest of the action, such as it was. It made no sense at all. That's just one example of how the movie was all over the place as it tried to find a way to be scary, I guess Even before that I was laughing at what was happening, as it was just so disjointed, repetitive, and predictable.

At two and a half hours it was too long, also. Painfully so. I stuck it out to the end, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. This would be good for one thing. That is for Mystery Science Theater 3000 to mock. Too bad MST went off the air before this movie was made; it would have been perfect for them.

I have to question the tastes of people who gave this mess good ratings. What were they thinking? Did they enjoy seeing most of the supporting cast do the same things over and over again, taking up time that was unnecessary? Did they not see the end coming within the first half hour?

Some (but not all) of the criticisms of this 4-part documentary are valid. But at the same time, there is only so much that can be covered in four one-hour segments of each of the members of the band that were with it the longest.

Overall, this is well worth watching for any Stones fan. I think some people were expecting the members to fit their marketing stereotypes, and were disappointed that they did not.

Surprisingly, I found the segment on Charlie Watts to be the most interesting.

So, for Stones fans, ignore the bad ratings here and watch this. You'll likely learn stuff you never knew about one of the, if not the, best rock and roll bands of all time.

Watching this film reminded me of what Gene Hackman's character in "Night Moves" said at one point: "I saw a Rohmer film once. It was kind of like watching paint dry." That pretty much describes the pain of sitting through this movie, which seemed agonizingly long, even though it was only 90 minutes long.

Yes, we get the connection between Ginger's obsession with nuclear war and what she is going through in her personal life. Can we have something more? No? That's it? That one theme is dragged out for 90 minutes? And not even very well, at that.

The only reason to give this movie a reasonably good rating is the superb performance by Elle Fanning. She shows she is an excellent actor, able to show a range of emotions effortlessly and naturally. The rest of the cast, with the exception of Christina Hendricks, were sleepwalking through their roles, playing stereotypes, and dully so.

Fans of Elle Fanning, like me, will enjoy watching her in this movie. Other that, the thin, predictable plot will leave you empty.

I didn't know that until I saw that HBO was running the film. It struck me that it was on cable very soon after being released, and I guessed that it must not have done well in theaters.

I can see why, too. It seemed the film couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be a comedy or a drama, and it pretty much failed at both. The characters were a bit underdeveloped and at the same time overly eccentric, too. The plot didn't seem to be revealed in an orderly manner, either, leaving viewers confused, which makes them lose interest.

The only thing I found interesting was that it seemed Christian Bale was imitating the Peter Falk "Columbo" character. He is a great actor, capable of playing utterly different characters. That's great, but he wasn't able to carry this film. Ultimately, it was an unsatisfying and forgettable film. Too bad; it seemed to have potential that it didn't live up to.

I mean, really, how could anyone who has watched many movies think this was good? It is pretentious, trying to be all full of meaning when really it is just a one-note film, dragged out over a too-long running time. We get it, Our Hero is a Tortured Soul. Now what? Uh, nothing.

For a movie to interest me I have to care about some of the characters, especially the main ones. I cared about no one in this film, especially not the main character. His anguished journey bored me. Been there, seen that. There was nothing original about it.

The cliches piled up here to the point where I almost gave up, almost unwilling to see it through to the end. But I did, just to see that one last cliche. Yep, there it was.

Life is too short to waste on bad movies. If you get the chance to see this one, don't.

Only one episode in, so I don't know where this is going. But I will say that it is easy to be an anarchist when you are independently wealthy, as the main characters in the first episode are.

So I'm not impressed. I'm even less impressed with their cherry-picking and/or misunderstanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

I will stick with it though, to see where this goes. I suspect the naive innocence we see in the first episode will fade. We'll see.

Oh, and for paul-aller: the word is "whet".

I enjoyed this episode of Doctor Who very much when it first came out. Recently I had to revisit it, because I read that Steven Moffat wrote this as an homage to the book "The Time Traveler's Wife", which he liked very much.

The same theme is continued by Moffat later when he became the showrunner for "Doctor Who", with the character River Song. Her life pretty much parallels that of the wife in the novel.

The book's author had no problem with this. In fact in her second novel she has a character who watches this exact episode of "Doctor Who".

Here is what Moffat says about this:

"It's very similar in mood if not in detail. It's about a time-lapse relationship, and I did it quite consciously - knowing I was doing The Time Traveler's Wife. In my time on Doctor Who, I was more interested in the time travel aspect than most people probably are - I loved time conundrums and paradoxes. [...] She has a character in the book actually watching The Girl in the Fireplace on television, so I knew she was onto me. At which point I could be more obvious, so I made Doctor Who a wife - River Song."

I don't share everyone's unbridled enthusiasm for this film. It is indeed a great popcorn flick, with outstanding aerial photography and maneuvers. But 10 stars? There are few, if any, movies that are perfect, and deserve that kind of rating.

The problem with the film is the plot. It is so filled with age-worn cliches that one could easily tell what was coming from beginning to end. I mean, you had to know who was going to save the day at the end, and you had to know what was going to happen when Maverick jumped out of Penny's window. Those are just two examples of the many obvious plot points that you could see coming a mile away. I could list them all, but it would take up too much space here. Basically the entire plot was entirely predictable.

The opening scene, especially, was straight out of Hollywood Screenplay Writing 101. I mean, seriously, how many times have we seen that subplot? Countless.

There were no characters in the movie, either. They were all caricatures, stereotypes. No depth to any of them. They had their standard roles to play, and that was it.

Did I enjoy the film? Sure, it was fun. Especially on a big theater screen with a loud sound system. Did I take anything away from the film? Did it make me think about anything after it was over? Nah. Will I see it again? Nah.

I will give Tom Cruise credit for including Val Kilmer in the cast. Considering his health problems, that was a nice touch.

So, yeah, enjoy the film. Sit back with your bag of popcorn and enjoy the g-forces. But don't pretend it is anything other than just another summer blockbuster.

This film can't seem to make up its mind about what type of movie it wants to be. Is it a Christian movie? Yeah, kind of. Is it a cheesy romance? Yeah, kind of. Is it a story about sex trafficking and abuse? Yeah, kind of. It's all of those things, but they don't really gel into a cohesive unit.

In spite of the rave reviews here from some people, I don't think this movie will gain much of an audience. I guess it didn't have much of a theatrical run, and that is understandable. It is too long, for one thing. The "love at first sight" theme doesn't really make sense; that threw me out of the film right there. If I can't buy into one of the basic plot points of a movie, I have trouble staying within the realm of the movie.

The excessive violence will drive some people away, too. That doesn't serve either the Christian theme or the romance theme. It does work for the sex abuse part, but that isn't all the movie is about, so it seems a bit out of place. There is a fight scene at one point that feels unrealistic, too, and that didn't help.

There is more I could criticize, but I don't want to go on too long here. The only reason I gave this movie the relatively high rating I did was because of some of the acting. Abigail Cowen was convincing in her role as the victim of life-long abuse that caused her to withdraw into herself and distrust everyone. Logan Marshall-Green brought nuance to his role as Paul. Eric Dane and Famke Janssen played their roles as the bad guys very well. On the other hand, Livi Birch was bland as the young Sarah/Angel, and Tom Lewis was no more than adequate as the ever-forgiving and ever-loving hero.

This isn't a bad movie by any means. But it also isn't one that will stick with you long after you watch it. The mix of different themes just didn't work here, and that is a problem.

I'm a tough critic for TV shows, but I am hooked on this series. The writing is what grabs me the most. I don't know how much of it comes directly from the book, but the writing is just so clever I have to laugh at it at times. Not because it is intentionally funny, but because it is so smart and enhances the story lines so well. I record the show on my DVR, and there are times when I replay scenes because the dialog is so good I want to enjoy it again.

The chemistry between the two lead characters couldn't be better, either. They are perfect together. Their bickering romance could have been rom-com bad, but they make it work beautifully. Great casting.

I had to do a double-take when I saw Steven Moffat's name attached to the show. He was, in my opinion, the best showrunner and writer who ever worked on "Doctor Who". I guess he has a thing for time travel! And I'm glad; he's done outstanding work on both "Doctor Who" and this new "The Time Traveler's Wife" series. Thank you, Steven, for proving us with more great entertainment!

Virtually every Lifetime movie includes scenes with women drinking wine. It's to the point where I sometimes wonder if some wine industry group is helping finance these movies so they include such scenes, just to promote wine. So why not an entire movie centered around wine?

It seems like a good idea, but the movie ended up like so many other Lifetime movies. That is to say, poorly executed with a quick ending that wraps everything up in an illogical package. Plus, anyone who didn't see the "mother who died in a car accident" subplot ending the way it did should be ashamed, if they have seen any other Lifetime movies. That was telegraphed early on, as soon as we found out she attended the same wine academy as our heroine does.

But the most inexplicable part of the movie was the use of the song "House of the Rising Sun" at the end. Considering what the song is about, it made absolutely no sense using it in the movie. Even if you don't know what the song is about, the lyrics did not fit anything remotely connected to the plot of the movie. That was just downright weird.

I expected more from a movie with the name "Guillermo del Toro " attached to it. I know he was only one of a number of producers, and not the writer or director, but I still expected more.

Instead this is a purely stereotypical horror film. A Native American myth come to life because of how the land is being destroyed by modern civilization. Nope, nothing original there. Then the monster goes around killing random people, as if that is somehow going to fix things. Okay, sure.

Worse, the movie is paced so slowly it drags, even with the relatively short run time. I guess that was supposed to be atmospheric, but instead it just became boring as the movie went on. The back story of the female lead was given so little time it seemed like it was just thrown in there to fill some time, since it really added very little to the flow of the plot.

And the very last scene? Done so many times it has become expected.

Don't bother with this one. You've seen it before.

OK, I've come to expect little from these movies. Formulaic, predictable, plot holes galore, and with endings that wrap things up way too easily, leaving plots lines unresolved, all after the last commercial break. Paint-by-numbers, as it were. Even the titles are reusable: "Deadly (something)", "Killer (something)", "Psycho (something)", and of course, "The Wrong (something)", just to name a few.

But this was just jaw-dropping bad. The plot made no sense at all, and it got more convoluted and illogical as it went along. I'm used to maniacal bad guys in these movies, too, and they are often fun to watch as you wait for their ultimate defeat. The ones in this movie are too over the top (which is saying a lot for these movies), as they overact and behave in ways that make no sense whatsoever.

Most of these movies are somewhat fun to watch, not to be taken seriously. Even some of the presenters that once in a while talk about the movies kind of make fun of them, obviously telling the audience not to take them seriously. Unfortunately, you don't have the opportunity to have tongue-in-cheek fun with this one. It is so bad that all you can do is cringe.

I know Lifetime and the production companies it uses pump out about 100 or more movies a year, so you can't expect great production values or writing, but this one should never have been made. It would not have been missed.

As an aside, I wonder why there are so many cheerleader movies made for Lifetime and LMN? I wouldn't think they would fit the Lifetime audience demographic, but they must, since more are made all the time.

This was the longest 80 minute film I've ever seen. The majority of the film is summed up in, "Where is she?".

Some reviewers here brag that they (and only they) understood the big reveal at the end. Sorry, but you aren't that special. And you also missed the hole in that twist that you could drive a truck through.

By the time one gets to the end and sees the twist ending, it's hard to care. If you are feeling masochistic, you could watch the movie again to "get" the twist. But is it worth it? No.

The best is Martin Scorcese's "The Last Waltz". But this is a very close second. Great music throughout.

No fan of Neil Young should ever miss this film.

This film is terrible in so many ways. Poorly acted, horrible direction, a plot line where the characters do ridiculous things.

But all that has been covered in other reviews here. What mystifies me is that this was released by a company called "Faith Films", with the DVD cover quoting Revelations, talking about a biblical prophecy and the End Times. None of that is mentioned in the film! There is one brief mention of going to church early in the movie, and later there is a pastor that helps some people. Those are not strong plot points, not highlighted or emphasized in any way. So what does "faith" have to do with this silly disaster movie? Nothing.

I tried to go to the Faith Films web site, and my anti-virus software blocked it, saying it may contain scam material. That could be a false blockage, but it kind of fits, considering the film really has nothing to do with Christianity, in spite of the DVD cover indicating otherwise. I guess that is a scam, too.

Anyway, the film is only worth watching if you want to mock how bad it is. For example, when the main character ends up in the desert for no particular reason. What?

Overall the critics gave this movie bad reviews, and audiences loved it. In one of the rare cases for me, I have to agree with the critics. This was just so sappy and predictable it made me groan as it worked hard to jerk every tear out of my body. There was just nothing original here, just the usual heartwarming followed by tragedy followed by heartwarming again. The ending, especially, was straight out of cliche central.

I enjoyed "A Dog's Purpose" and "A Dog's Journey" and, while they are similar to this movie, I think the writing and acting is better in those two movies. Skip this one, watch those.

Did anyone not know who was going to save the day at the end of the movie? If you didn't, shame on you.

Rib Hillis, who wouldn't have a career if it weren't for Lifetime and other TV movies, is too over the top here as the bad guy. I guess with a title like this, it is what we should expect, but any semblance to believability was destroyed by him chewing the scenery. But it is a Lifetime movie, after all. Expectations should be low to begin with.

OK, I can enjoy a mindless action flick as much as anyone. But this one was just so bad there was no way to enjoy it at all. As bad movies go, it had it all: bad acting (didn't they bother to do multiple takes of some scenes to make them better?), no chemistry between the leads, lame attempts at humor amidst all the mayhem and death, and a plot that makes "Sharknado" seem like an Orson Welles movie.

This movie pops up on cable once in a while. When it does, pop on over to another channel.

The other reviewers here pretty well nailed the problems with this movie, but I'll add a couple my own observations.

Paying homage to other movies or styles is fine, but this movie is nothing but homages. There needs to be some originality mixed in, or a film falls flat, as this one does. Quentin Tarantino is famous for showing respect for other films and styles in his movies, but he adds his own flavor to his work, so the homages are evident but also not the only aspect to his films. That works; in this film those homages do not.

Part of the reason for that is the number of films and styles paid tribute to here. There are too many, creating a confusing mixture, with no single theme binding everything together. An example of that would be the final resolution with the character The Duchess. What happens is inconsistent with the world of the rest of the film, seemingly thrown in just to pay homage to another famous film (I won't say more because I don't like putting spoilers in my reviews).

The script is also a problem. We've seen the dystopian, ruling class vs underclass thing many times in other films. To stand out, there would have to be something new and original added to the genre. There was not.

Finally, the ending was telegraphed. Once the "twist" was revealed, it was obvious what was going to happen at the end. That took away any suspense or surprise that I would imagine the filmmakers wanted to give audiences.

So why did I give the movie 5 stars, which is higher than other people did, in spite of my harsh review? The set designs were somewhat interesting, and the flaws in the movie, while evident throughout, were most obvious after watching it. I was somewhat engaged while watching the film, but most disappointed afterward.

That has to be one of the greatest lines from any Lifetime movie! The movie is bad, there is no question about that. The only saving grace is that it doesn't take itself seriously. The line in my title proves that.

That the movie doesn't take itself seriously, and neither should any viewer, is further shown by the final confrontation in the movie. "Nice form" the bad guy says, as....well, I won't give that away. Just know that what happens is absurd.

Is it worth watching? Compared to most Lifetime movies, maybe, just for the comic aspects. But only if you are a fan of Lifetime movies. Otherwise, no. My 6 stars is generous, only because I was able to laugh at some points in it. Just don't expect any Emmy nominations for the acting, writing, or direction. It is just a Lifetime movie, after all.

The Lifetime Movie Machine churns out another one. Don't the writers get tired of reusing the same formulas all the time? The same plots, over and over again? The same "twists" over and over again? Gaping plot holes you can drive a truck through?

I guess not. How else can they keep producing around two movies a week?

If you've seen any of the previous Lifetime "obsessed tenant" movies, you've already seen this one. Skip it.

This could have been a fun little comedy about the inside workings of Hollywood, about the games people play and the betrayals that go on. But it went off the rails with that serious plot twist toward the end, and with the ending.

Instead of being entertained and amused, when the movie was over I felt pretty much nothing. All that came before was lost at the end.

Too bad; I like Clark Gregg a lot. He directed the movie well, but someone should have helped him with the writing, guided him not to leave audiences with a bad taste in their mouths.

The only bright spot in the film was Saxon Sharbino. She showed she really is a good actress. But other than that, this is a forgettable movie. It won't stick with you past the closing credits.

5 people are credited with writing this mess of a movie. Why? The movie is just a collection of horror movie formulas, with no originality at all.

Worse was the direction. Scenes jumped from one to another without any logic or connection.

I guess another question I would have is: How do movies like this even get made? Or better, how do they get DVD releases? This is so amateurish that I don't think it would be acceptable as a film student film.

Easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The only redeeming feature is that it is short, so the pain of enduring it doesn't last long.