jpiccone-87844

There's lot of criticism of the actors, but could anyone do better with this script?

The problem we're seeing more or less everywhere is weakly-written female characters. A good character needs an arc - in the case of Galadriel, they're obviously going for the hero's journey, but if you have her start out infallible and invulnerable, there's no development possible and so nothing to invest in for the audience.

Contrast her with Eowyn, who had to overcome her insecurities and social role to become a warrior, and she ended up scoring a critical success against the enemy.

We don't love characters for their strengths, we love them for their flaws, and how they overcome them. The modern way female characters are being written is robbing the audience of strong and relatable characters.

Also, you have to lift up underrepresented groups, not tear down others. The troll scene showed 10 male elves easily swept away and then defeated by Galadriel without raising a sweat - that was an unintentionally funny scene and a missed opportunity. What if she'd given commands and gotten her unit organized and used sound tactics to defeat the troll. Which scene was more compelling, this one, or in FotR where a group of the world's most formidable warriors back up by a wizard barely survived?

Why dwell on this? Because Galadriel is the main character of this saga and she's awful - to the point I want to cheer for Sauron. I don't understand how anyone could have thought this was a good idea for a main character.

I'm not sure this is fixable - when you add this to the total demystification of the elves, who are supposed to be powerful immortal beings - and remember, Galadriel is supposed to be thousands of years old, not an impulsive 20-something. Because they're just treated like any other person. She doesn't have to glow like she did in LotR, but all I'm getting is a very unappealing self-absorbed person who I just don't care about.

The writing is head-scratching - was she going to swim all the way across the ocean, catching fish and rainwater along the way? Why not just finish the voyage and take a boat back? It's just so stupid - how did that make it past an editor, or anyone at all reading it?

A lot of the CGI is spectacular, but a lot of it is not. Khazad-Dum didn't look right because everyone was oriented toward the viewer, which didn't make sense - whereas Numenor didn't have this problem.

The costumes are awful, looking like cheap synthetic velvet with gold leaf pasted to them. How is this possible with a budget like that?

I'm really disappointed - this really hand enormous potential - the right story was chosen, but this project really needed people passionate about Tolkein involved. I just don't feel the love.

I was excited to watch this given the overwhelmingly positive critical acclaim this got, plus I loved Please Like Me and she was great in that.

I watched it all the way through, although I couldn't do it in one sitting. Have you ever watched a long Norm MacDonald routine that meanders all over the place, but when it gets to where it's going, you know you've been in the presence of genius? This is whatever the opposite of that is.

I don't think I've ever heard anything more self-indulgent and hypocritical than this. She rants and raves against Picasso, who apparently "raped" an underaged girl, who was 17, which was not and is not underaged in France, but never mind, let's lump in Picasso and Woody Allen with actual rapists and then claim that sexual predation is the norm for men. If you substituted the word "Jew" for "man" throughout this mess, you would think she was reciting from Mein Kampf.

I grew up gay in a conservative area too - and I was an altar boy, so there's that. I'll bet I could make you laugh if I told you my story - or I could prey on your empathy to feed my sense of self-importance.

This show isn't as awful as some of the reviews paint it, but it's lazily written with no subtlety and fairly wooden acting, and it's also ridiculous. It's a mish-mash of superhero story and angels & devils, with a dollop of scifi.

For anyone who complained they were looking for scifi and got religious fantasy, the title is The Messengers. What did you think it would be about? The cover even says "When evil rises, good awakens".

Anyway, I suffered through the first few episodes because J. D. Pardo is so smoking hot I couldn't take my eyes off him, but in the end it wasn't enough.

Here's a review from someone not involved in the production.

This is an amazing achievement on an obviously minute budget, covering three heroes of the Titanic story that deserve more attention. The sets & effects are adequate for the purpose, and the acting... not exactly Oscar material, particularly the bit parts, but the Bride actor does a good job and and Philips isn't bad either.

This film won't appeal much to anyone with no interest in history or the Titanic, but if you are, it is faithful to the record and the actors are not hard on the eyes, especially the Bride guy, who is objectively beautiful.

It was a nice touch having an image of the actual Titanic iceberg in the background when the Carpathia arrives.

I'm not sure I saw the same film as the other reviewer, but this one had problems. A lot was accomplished with a small budget, and while the film was competently made, it needed a LOT of tightening. There are endless repetitive scenes that I think were intended to build tension but instead had me screaming "get on with it!" at my screen.

Also, the introduction of a non-homonormative element was abrupt and didn't really make any sense, and a lot of the plot was driven by clichés, many of which just don't ring true at all.

I give it 4 stars because I wish I hadn't watched it and instead spent the time on a better movie, or maybe sleeping.

When you have a schlubby guy get the almost unbelievably attractive guy, you need to show WHY it happened. Being a whiny stalker for an entire year generally doesn't produce this result, and one has to wonder why, if he found the protagonist so attractive, the barista waited a year to make a move. Maybe he had to make absolutely sure the man of his dreams was an unemployed complete loser first?

There is a lot of experimentation with the filming - but unfortunately they are all failures. If you have to show half your film in fast-motion, it probably means the material is too tiresome to leave in at all, and other than the fixed shots, it looked like it was filmed on 80s video tape by an epileptic.

The only reason I have it the second star is that the lead is very convincing in his role - which unfortunately is to be the most annoying person possible, but you can't deny his commitment.

Lead Derek Magyar has unbelievable screen presence, and his chemistry with all the other actors was deep and convincing, and even breathtaking with Patrick Bauchau - to the point of pulling off a clichéd relationship (the excellent writing was a huge help too.) I didn't know Darryl Stephens was that good an actor - I've only seen him in schlocky/campy work previously, and here he has an opportunity to show us what he can do.

I don't think I've ever seen a hustler given so much depth and authenticity (not that I really know what's authentic for a hustler, but it was convincing), while largely avoiding cliché.

I loved this film - easily the best gay film I've seen in many years. I would have given it a ten, but a minor flaw was the overly pat ending that didn't quite feel deserved, but for that it would have been a perfect film.