llhorton

I don't get the hate. What are people wanting? To go along personally to make sure the action is up to their own needs? To see an 80 year old man doing all of the same stunts he did 42 YEARS AGO? It's a movie for Heaven's sake. They don't remember when the first movie came out, what an unusual and fantastic product unlike anything we'd seen. This movie was the perfect ending in my opinion. I wanted to clap at the end. It drew everyone back together perfectly. The only thing that could have helped was that it should have been done 10 years ago, but hey... they wanted to but had to have a script, a cast, and a director to take it on. If you're an Indy fan, you won't be disappointed.

Complaints of the movie being uneven are not taking into consideration that the general nature of movies is uneven to a certain extent; everything isn't always one thing or another. They must segue into each part and not every part is as stimulating as the last. We must find meaning in each part that satisfies us. It's not your usual movie but broken into parts as a book would be. Overall I think the movie is a real taste of the west, both good and bad. A great story.

I agree that it's predictable but then again almost every movie pretty much follows a pattern. It's not a shoot 'em up western, no blood and guts. It relies on the abilities of the actors to bring the story home. The beautiful cinematography is a bonus. I'm a Tom Hanks fan but his understated character who has seen too much in his life and works with great restraint against any evil he comes across is, as always, a wonderful performance. The little girl does an outstanding job acting the part of the twice orphaned child. All in all it's definitely worth watching and at just under an hour it's well worth your time.

Without novacaine. That's all... the baby crying was supposed to give us a feel of how frustrated the lead character was but it was only irritating. We get it. She's frustrated. Move on. Then slowly, slowly, leading up to... nothing... hard pass

A poignant view of an old disappearance clouded by dementia. Jackson is spectacular.

This one has it all - suspense, murder, a beautiful leading lady, excellent leading man, perfect comic relief.... if you haven't seen it you need to

I haven't read the book but I'm guessing it was superior to this slog of a movie. Most of the reviews here are from folks who have read there book... which is cool, but I prefer a movie that is good no matter whether you read the source material or not. This isn't that movie.

The acting was very good. But the chopped, convoluted plot made no sense, back and forth with no rhyme or reason. And dragged on about an hour longer than needed to make the point. A previous reviewer hit the nail on the head: you're left wondering how long until the end, begging for some sort of ending, anything to escape.

Otherwise, the sound is muddled and everyone mumbles their lines... use your closed captions in order to better understand the dialog.

Do yourself a favor and skip it. Save yourself 4 or 10 or 15 hours.

I'm older now but this movie still gets me. It's a wonderful love story about boy meets girl but the real story is the love between dad and son. Superbly acted by all involved and with a stellar soundtrack, you can watch it ten times and be touched by the story every time. I can't recommend it enough for those days when real life is so negative.

It's comedy. It's really quite funny, and even funnier if you are in emergency services. It's not a top ten of all time comedy but it's plenty funny compared to a lot of today's garbage. Comparing it to Brooklyn 911? What about St Elsewhere, ER, Grey's Anatomy, etc... all based on the same premise. What about every ridiculous fire, EMS, police and ER drama? Are any of them based on any reality other than soap opera? If you want ridiculous premise disguised as drama, then watch Chicago Fire, etc.... ad nauseam. If you need a half hour of light comedy, watch this instead.

The original movie was hysterical from beginning to end and the same folks who wrote and starred in that one, wrote and directed this series. The entire situation is unique and different from anything else on TV, which helps to make it special. Don't miss it!

4 episodes in and this is one of the worst... watching with the wife, so I'm in as long as she is. Now: in my opinion, I'll bet the original Spanish or Portuguese language series may have been much better but I can't tell. The English dubbing is worse than awful. Wooden reading the script with little or no feeling. It's really terrible. The music, which is not as great as it had the potential to be, is overbearing background noise while the actual characters movements are muted... think! An opportunity to use a soundtrack based on 50s Rio! And then the thudding let down of what is provided. Finally, the speed of the plot is a snail's pace with no hope of redemption. I'm 4 episodes in and the whole thing is still barely off the ground. An elementary school play director could have done better.... skip it in my opinion. The actress playing the lead is very pretty if that's enough of a reason to watch this slog.

This movie is pretty depressing. I guess that means it's pretty realistic if played true to form. Functional family becomes dysfunctional family and breaks apart. Pretty ho-hum all around; however, Jennifer Garner is excellent as a bi-polar mom dealing with her crumbling life. The rest of the cast turn in decent performances but Garner shines and proves she's a really good actress.

I like lots of movie genres and I try to remain positive about my thoughts on them, mainly because the people reviewing here seem to have a love or hate relationship with the whole thing. And often reviewers are polar opposites of what the consumer thinks. Some even go so far as to say that the extreme split indicates a masterpiece or a bomb and they are on the masterpiece side. Not hardly. It's pretty middle of the road with a couple of highlights and a lot of low lights.

I think Olivia Colman does a wonderful job. Best actress Oscar? Not really. Rachael Weiss did a pretty decent job. Emma Stone, who I love, was only adequate. The plot was plodding, difficult to understand what they were saying, and too long. We didn't really learn anything about Lady Marlborough or Queen Anne, other than alleged homosexual desires which is not based in fact. One reviewer pointed out that it's really a remake of 'The Three Faces of Eve" but not as good.

The score for the music, as many have commented, is terrible. It's worse than that. It's so disjointed that I found myself examining how silly the scene actually would be without the music, something a good movie score composer would never let happen. The music supports what's on the screen. Not in this case. It this case, I think, it's supposed to bring out a heightened sense of drama and suspense. In this respect it fails miserably. It's the worst part of the movie. Also the funky camera shots, especially the fish eye lens shots look amateurish and are unnecessary. If you read the trivia section on this i tkhink you'll see part of the problem: no budget with which to make it. The costumes were recycled throughout the shoot which is about a shoestring budget as you can believe. How can you make a "masterpiece" with no financial support? You can't, is the answer. I"m the only person on earth who hasn't seen "A Star is Born" but I'm guessing Lady Gaga did a better job as best actress.

I waited until it for hit Redbox and I'm glad I did. I would have hated paying full price for it.

So. If you're bored and feel compelled to spend money, then this is for you. Otherwise stay away. Watch at home, but only if the overall themes of the picture of jealously, hate, deviousness and conspiracy have no meaning to you and you're willing to watch and believe then, then do so by all means