bernie-122

I wasn't sure at first, but I like Sissy and JK, so I stayed. Glad I did. Apart from some interludes of, to me, inappropriate drama, it kept pulling me along. Otherwise the acting is top drawer and the story hasn't yet become too implausible. Still time for that, I suppose, but that would mean there's going to be a second season. I;ve given it a 7. Would have been an 8 without aforementioned unnecessary drama scenes.

If this was actually about two art robberies, then it would maybe make a little more sense. But even then, I don't see it. If Casey morphed into Rose, then I guess I get it a little bit, but still most of the movie went right over my head. I'm usually pretty good at following this kind of stuff, so all I can say is it must have been badly done. I don't even know who was still alive at the end, apart from Casey.

I wish people would stop comparing this title to "Duel". There are few if any similarities. Rutger Hauer owns this movie. On the other hand, C. Thomas Howell almost succeeded in ruining the film. I am gobsmacked at how many reviewers praised his cringe-worthy performance. I don't know if he is naturally a rotten actor, or he was just doing what the director told him to do. It's an even bigger tribute to Hauer's talents that he easily offset all the bad acting by the rest of the cast and made this film a timeless classic. Really, looking back on it, it's almost as if they were intending to make a "So bad it's good" movie, and nearly succeeded. J. J. Leigh was right behind C. T. Howell in the bad acting stakes, but wasn't able to be anywhere near as maddenly annoying and and make such spectacularly stupid choices all the way through. There seems to be an unwritten rule that says any American film must have characters like this; it doesn't seem to happen anywhere else. Anyway, Hauer singlehandedly rescues this mess, which shouldn't have been possible with the string of improbabilities in the plot, such as shooting down a helicopter with a pistol from a moving vehicle. Yeah, right. (I'm going to go out on a limb here and not call that a spoiler) The original, with all its flaws, easily outshines the tragic 2007 remake; I really like Sean Bean, but Rutger Hauer he isn't. It's well and fitting to be that way; they never should have attempted to remake this. I will give this one an 8/10, not a 10, only because Howell's horrible performance cannot be ignored.

I didn't want to do this, but this movie seems to have created polarization equalled only by the baffling politics that's going on now. Firstly, there's the cringeworthy reviews by people loudly complaining that there's no colour and the screen is half chopped off. Many don't even have the concept of Aspect Ratio, or can allow that B&W with cramped aspect is a valid way to treat something set in century before last. Others complain simplistically that there's no plot, no coherence, no sense at all, which is obviously overstating the problem. Sure, there's almost complete lack of cohesion, and there's no forgiving that; we can also say that calling it a masterpiece is vastly overstating things in the opposite direction. What bothered me was that what artsy gimmicks there were, were too transparent or just overdone. Big dollops of subtlety are necessary when you tread this ground. None of that here. And if you were still there by the ending, well, that was the icing on the cake. All I could do was shake my head and whisper "Wtf??" Willem DaFoe and Robert Pattinson basically did pretty well, with DaFoe hamming it up to the hilt, while demonstrating that he's still got what it takes. Pattinson did nearly as well, although his accent was all over the place. In the end I have to evaluate this in terms of what effect it had on me, and I can only say I was left scratching my head. The only thing I can remotely compare this to is Lynch's Eraserhead, which, unlike this one, I went back and watched repeatedly until I was sure I understood it. I am unable to even consider doing that for this one. The "4" I gave this is for the photography and the acting.

It is rare for me to give any movie one star, but here it is. I will not bore you with all the reasons. That has been done here already. What I'm now facing is the opportunity to watch the sequel, and why would I want to do that? On the one hand, the makers would have had the opportunity to see how their efforts have been thoroughly ridiculed, and thus could have easily repaired many of their mistakes in time for the sequel. On the other hand, people capable of blunders of this magnitude are unlikely to be able to do the prodigious amount of necessary learning. So, I'm leaning toward pretending I never heard of this film and go looking elsewhere for a good sci-fi/horror experience, which seems these days to be increasingly a waste of time. If you haven't yet seen this laughable mess, you are lucky. Skip this and keep looking.

2 things. 1. They used up most of the budget on the realistic-looking ship and didn't have any money left to pay writers; and, 2. Somebody in Admin decided that nobody was going to want all this spaceship crap, so they turned it into a soap opera. There's no other way to explain how such a mess of a movie could have come about, considering how it got off to a quite respectable start. Somebody has a lot to answer for. Even after reading a few pages of one and two star reviews, I still had to see for myself. The thing is, the acting basically wasn't bad, other than getting too emotional at times; a spaceship emergency is no time to be getting teary. This is just about the worst case of a completely unnecessarily missed opportunity I've ever seen.

I have to strongly disagree with all the 9 and 10 star reviews here. In spite of the fact that it contains some of my favourite actors, the fact is, there is an excess of soapy drama, which is more remeniscent of a TV series than a serious movie. And the gushing praise for Mr. Stallone is misplaced; although his acting isn't as wooden as we're accustomed to, it's hardly oscar material. The only way I could watch this film was in little sessions of half hour or less. So, it took days to finish it. I wouldn't have been able to do even that without there being, as I said, some of my favourite actors. Some of them seemed a little bored, and weren't up to the usual standard. All in all, this is a fairly mediocre movie, and not very coherent. Something is obviously wrong, because I am usually an avid consumer of all manner of cop films, even without the excellent ensemble cast of this one.

Ok, if this is supposed to be a foray into the Bourne universe, I suppose it can be said that it's somewhat successful. More than the Bourne Legacy was, anyway. But the scenes that are supposed to represent North Korea are depicting opulently furnished mansions and a generally upper-class living style, This is ludicrous. Everybody knows that North Korea is impoverished and depressed to the extreme. There is nothing bright and cheerful about it. So what is the cause of this oversight? I don't pretend to know, but it taints the whole production. I can't get the unrealism out of my head. I will admit to being only 3 episodes in, so it's possible they may have corrected some of this later on. But the damage is done. The rest of it is a more or less acceptable fit to the Ludlum galaxy, so I will keep watching, as I was made an addict by the Bourne movies.

I wouldn't have bothered, but this mess just made me really angry. It was an interesting notion, and it could have succeeded, but for being ruined by plentiful soap-opera drama and pushing the feminist stuff way too hard. The first two episodes were essentially ok, and the last two not too bad; nearly everything in between was just ruined. The idea of trying to picture what would have happened if the Russians had got to the moon first, that was a good one. Portraying it in this highly unrealistic way, and overloading it with drama took away anything good it managed to bring out. Some of the characters were annoying in the way that only Americans can manage to pull off. The TV newscaster who I guess was supposed to be Walter Cronkite is a good example. It's a worry that so many picked this as a very good piece of entertainment; even if you forgive the bad SFX, like the badly simulated moon gravity, it still fails badly. A lot of people obviously had their hand in this; it's astonishing that they couldn't see what a turd they were making.,

One thing I will give them; they appear to have used the genuine Mission Control room with the big screens and all, but with about 1/3 of the number of people. Not many people know that this room and all the screens and displays were controlled from a hidden huge room that had 5 IBM-System-360 mainframe computers running everything.

Well, I admit I wasn't expecting a lot, but as soon as I saw the space suit helmets full of lights inside, I knew what I was in for. Inept movie makers cannot resist doing this, to make the lighting job easier. Any dimwit can see that if your helmet is full of bright lights, you won't be able to see a thing outside. Even so, I was unprepared for how bad this mess really is. I love Sci-Fi, and am usually pretty forgiving of mistakes, as it's hard to find a piece of watchable space opera these days. And there are those rare gems that somehow find their way to a release of sorts. This is neither of those. Rather, it distinguishes itself as one of the worst movies I've ever seen, on all levels. Could have been directed by Tommy Wiseau. I really can't say any more.

I am mainly here to ask the above question of all the numbskulls here who have done just that. I admit that even I didn't wait for the whole season to finish, but at least I waited until I had episode 8 under my belt. What I can say is that it finally shows signs of getting interesting.

What I will do is agree with those who say Chris Rock was a poor choice for the lead character. I'm sorry, but he can't act.

For the rest, this is only a thin shadow of the first 3 seasons. Not for most of the reasons outlined here, after watching episode 1, maybe 2. In my book, the real problem is there is way too much drama, presumably added to get the approval of all those shallow watchers who think everything has to be saturated in drama, else it's a waste of time. The reality is, it's only the oddball characters, like the nurse and the OCD cop who manage to make it resemble Fargo at all. Why does this have to happen. Season 1 was right up there with Breaking Bad as among the best things I've ever seen on television, period. 2 and 3 were not quite up there, but were nearly as good. So, I suppose they couldn't keep it up forever. I hope this hasn't ruined it, and it becomes the last season. If they are lucky enough to be allowed to make another one, at the least they should go back to Minnesota, and maybe pick up some of its lost Fargoesque underpinnings. Maybe I'm missing something, and it will all make sense after it's finished, but I don't see how it can save itself now. I wouldn't normally even bother with this "review", but maybe Noah and the rest actually read these things, which they should, because, well, how else are you going to find out that your thread has become derailed?

The cast were actually not that bad, excepting maybe agent Fox, who was a little over the top. The rest were capably trying to do their best with the miserable script and entirely absent story line. This truly belongs among the few worst movies I have ever seen. The only reason it isn't as bad as Tommy Wiseau's The Room is because Tommy isn't in it. Otherwise, it makes just about as much sense. Apparently, the nonsensical ending was tacked on because they'd run out of ideas and had to end it somehow. The real failing of this film is that it falls just short of being "so bad it's good". What a shame, could have been a classic.

I wasn't going to do this, but this really is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Morgan Freeman, Vanessa Redgrave and Robert Duvall must be embarrassed to their toes that their names are on this. I haven't seen Téa Leoni for quite awhile, but has she always been this wooden and cringingly unwatchable? Not that I didn't enjoy looking at her, but if only she hadn't opened her mouth. Reminds me of Scarlett Johannson in early days. Neither Elijah Wood nor his pointless character contributed anything.

The blame for this hysterical mess must fall squarely on the director. Attempting to turn an extinction-causing event into a maudlin soap opera is something only a woman would do, and only in America would this happen. The fact that there are so many nine and ten star reviews speaks volumes. There are masses of shallow people who just eat this stuff up, and that is a worry in itself. The producers know this and deliberately set out to manipulate these kinds of people. Yes, Spielberg had a hand in this, and it shows.

The FX are a joke, even for 1998. On a par with Charlton Heston as Moses parting the Red Sea. The comet, arguably the star of the show, was just pathetic.

The only fun I got out of this was looking at all the 90's tech on display. Otherwise, complete waste of time.

Why do they even bother making something like this if they're only going to follow the exact same formula every other disaster movie has used. Even though I could barely understand what the characters were saying, I was still prepared to tag along. But when it came to diving suits, and the attendant science, well, I'm sorry, it's a big fail. Firstly, nobody has ever gone "outside" in a suit at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. 7 tons per sq. in. Does anyone realise how much pressure that is? Any diving suit not made of 6-foot thick Titanium would be crushed like an eggshell. And the lights. The hallmark of scientific ineptitude is to provide space/diving suits with lights inside the helmet. It is patently obvious that, especially in a pitch-dark environment, lights of any kind inside your helmet would completely destroy your ability to see outside. Nobody would design such a helmet. But there they are, in 99% of space/diving movies. Convenience for the lighting crew always triumphs over realistic science. There's a lot more trash science in this movie, but the helmet issue by itself is enough to ruin it, for me, anyway. I can otherwise forgive a lot of sins in exchange for a good story to get lost in, but sadly, I don't see one here.

I have been following Scarlett Johansson since she first appeared on the scene. Though she was a little robotic at first, it wasn't long before she got the hang of it. I became convinced that there couldn't be a truly bad movie as long as she was in it. This one came very close to proving me wrong. I suspect she might have done it in some spare time between real movies just to pick up some pocket change. I can't think of any other reason why she would agree to participate in this mess. Ok, I am at a little disadvantage here; I am not a fan of movies made from comic books. I think a film should present some form of intellectual challenge, else it tends to be a waste of time. Nor did I see the original, but I see from the reviews here that it wasn't really necessary. Maybe I'm just too old for this sort of thing. No... It really is crap.

It is common for me to come here and have a look before I actually spring for an unknown movie. I didn't do that this time. I should have. I didn't quite get halfway through before I couldn't wait any longer for something to actually happen. I had assumed that this would be some kind of homage to the original classic, with some FX made possible in this modern age. What I found instead was a disjointed mess with a truly irritating lead actress and a fairly inept supporting cast. Plot holes galore, stupid moves, you name it. Another thing; I kept being distracted by the lead's too-white front teeth. They're obviously not real, and probably expensive, so why not choose natural looking ones? Anyway, if they just wanted to make money with this, I guess it succeeded, because it only cost seven million to make, (only? I can remember when that was a lot of money) and they took in a lot more than that. So, a lot of disappointed people walking around. If you're thinking of watching this, think again.

It takes a special talent to take three legendary actors like Brad Pitt, Donald Sutherland and Tommy Lee Jones and then give them so little to do that the audience falls asleep. This very talented director managed it. The whole thing feels disjointed, the narration sounds like Brad is mumbling in his sleep. Perhaps even worse, whether to try and spice it up a bit, or just to be able to claim it as a piece of real space opera, there are scenes which have nothing to do with the story, such as it is, and don't get me started on the bad science. The moon rovers, for instance, were not driving in moon gravity. This is obvious to anyone who is aware of such things. Worse, they were probably CGI rovers, so they could have fixed the gravity, but didn't know or didn't care.

I only watched this because, with 3 of my all-time favourite actors, how could it not be good? Now I know. If you were going to watch it for that reason, forget it. Go water the lawn or wash your car, it'll be more fun.

I was going to give up after episode 1, but I came here and read some of the reviews, then decided to give it another go. But I only got halfway through ep. 2 when I decided I could no longer accept my intelligence being further insulted. Ultra-irritating characters, ultra-stupid decisions and actions, way too many flashbacks, and the fake scares just became too much.

I actually thought that Shun, as about the only character who wasn't annoying, would at least take the lead and carry the story through to some satisfying conclusion. Alas, the writers weren't going to have any of that, so the whole plot got hijacked by shrill, emotional, illogical players who had no clues about how to survive and unfailingly chose the wrong or fatal course of action. Please, no more.

It's a real shame, because it could have been really good. The spaceship wasn't too bad, it kept me from giving it a 2.

I would have given this a 9 but for 2 things. The first is that I keep getting a bit lost and unable to fully follow what's happening. This doesn't usually happen to me, so there must be something wrong with the production. The other thing is the fluorescent tubes inside everyone's spacesuit helmet. Nearly every space opera does this, but nobody seems to realize that nobody would actually put such a light in any such helmet, because the wearer would be blinded by the glare and wouldn't be able to see anything around him. This is done solely to solve some lighting issues the easy way, and once you have realized this, it is impossible from then on to not look at all space helmets and sneer with derision upon spotting the interior lights. I won't even go into the absurdity of fluorescent lamps being in use 200 years from now. They are also used in general lighting in many scenes. I'm only halfway through season 1, so I'm still hoping the production will become more coherent as time goes on. My worst fear was of overdone CGI, but so far that hasn't happened, though it's come close at times. Coming from Canada, it's really fairly impressive. I shudder to think what a horrific mess it would be if someone from this country (Australia) tried to make something like this. For some reason, nearly everything that's done here is truly cringe-worthy.

Well, I could be faulted for not watching the whole season before writing this, but I think if it hasn't taken off by now (episode 5), it's not going to. I didn't figure it would be a piece of space opera, but neither did I think it would be an incoherent mess of incomprehensible drama. And if, after a whole season, they still haven't actually got to Mars yet (I don't know this; I just read it here somewhere), then I'm not surprised somebody pulled the plug. I found myself involuntarily pushing the fast forward button repeatedly, just so I could maybe see a tiny bit of action. Nope. So far, just five episodes of bickering and complaining. I will have to decide whether to carry on or cut my losses; at the moment, bailing out seems fairly attractive. Too bad, there are some good actors in this, but they are just given nothing to do. What a waste.

The surest sign of ultra-lameness in an action film is when there is some sort of suit which has a helmet attached, and whaddya know, 9 times out of 10, the faceplate of the helmet is illuminated from the inside, as it is here. Well, you don't need a science degree to know that if you were wearing such a thing, you wouldn't be able to see a damn thing, because of the intense glare. This is just so obvious, and yet, because it simplifies the task of lighting the scene, this is what they do.

So, this would have been an average disposable popcorn-muncher, but instead it's become, for me, a case of being barely able to sit through the rest of it. And the budget! $125 million, to make a non-event like this? With that kind of money, I'm sure they could have found lighting solutions that didn't insult our intelligence in this way. They think, nobody will notice, or realise that nobody would actually do this. I noticed the absurdity of this trick the first time I saw it, I wouldn't remember which film it was, because I don't remember anything else about it. Same with all the others I've seen since. I'm really tired of being taken for an idiot. You should be, too.

I've given this a 3, only because Simon Pegg is in it, though he should know better.

This marks the end of my reliance on amateur movie reviewers in making a decision about whether or not to watch any given movie. Because of them, I almost didn't watch this one. I will say this: Ignore everyone who bagged this film. They don't know what they're talking about. After reading endless 1-star reviews, and even some 9- or-10 star ones, I see that none of them got it right. Of the bad things I might say about this film, the worst would be that the science is just terrible. I don't blame this on the filmmakers directly, rather on the average american being so ignorant of things scientific that the makers know they can get away with almost anything. In large part, I can live with this. The requirement to suspend disbelief is very common for moviegoers, and for a lot of reasons. But, when it comes to science, it is different. A lot of us know pretty much what is possible and what is not. The science in this film failed when it came to scaling everyday big-people's objects to the small world. It just doesn't work. The small world looked just like ours. In order to have fridges, ovens, toasters, televisions, etc. that look exactly like the ones we have, there would have to be massive miniature factories with hordes of miniature robots building these devices from impossibly tiny components. A whole manufacturing economy would have to be in place. I saw no evidence of this. All the little peoples' needs appeared to be provided by big people. None of the reviews I read noted that a shrunken person would necessarily have a very high, squeaky voice. They all sounded exactly like lower-volume big people. Of course, that would ruin the whole film, so best to just ignore it.

Nowhere in the film did I see any reference to shrinking any beings other than humans. Yet, in Norway, we see horses, sheep, dogs, all suitably miniaturized. The first thing that struck me when I saw the miniature yacht in the Norwegian fjord was that the thing was only about 3 feet long at most; the fjord was glassy smooth, but I'm quite sure they're not always like that. The weather can get very nasty, and if it did, a 3-foot boat would have no chance at all.

Leaving all that aside, things really weren't that bad until the silly climate lectures started, and it really fell apart with the methane revelation. Talk about bad science! And if the earth did get enveloped in the biggest methane bubble that it could produce, would it really take 8,000 years to get over it? I kinda doubt it.

Much has been said about the nonsense of Mrs. Safranek getting cold feet at the last minute and bailing out of the whole thing. It almost looks to me as if they had already partly shot the film and she needed to be hastily written out of it, for reasons we wil never be party to. That would be consistent with her sudden disappearance. Then again, it would make sense to shoot the scenes of the actual shrinking at the very last, because they involve shaving everybody's hair and eyebrows off. It wouldn't do to have to wait for Matt's hair to grow back.

Anyway, the science of the shrinking process isn't much better than the rest. But, so what? Is it a good watch? Yes, up until the last half hour, when the wheels fell off. So, I suppose it could be recommended, with the warning to disregard the silly ending, but you'd realize that, anyway, albeit too late. But I wouldn't spend a lot of money on it. As for the satire, I didn't see any. At least, not the American kind, where they rub your face in it to make sure you got it. But I didn't see the other kind of satire, either. Not much of any kind of humor.

Finally, I would say that this isn't really Matt Damon's kind of film, so I don't know why he did it. Needed the money, perhaps. Not that he didn't do alright with what there was to work with. I'll give it a 6.

I wouldn't normally do this, but I have some suspicion that the makers might look here from time to time to see how it's going on the outside.

I've been watching this from the beginning, and got hooked right away. It was so refreshing to see James Spader again, i will unashamedly admit I will watch anything with him in it.

My main complaint is that the writers have dropped the ball on a number of occasions, turning the narrative into absurdity. At times it looked like they were writing for a completely different show.

A big source of annoyance for me is Ressler. Although I would like to like him, his character is so unlikeable that I can't help thinking it's the real Klattenhoff we're seeing. But the real trouble is, whenever he speaks, he mumbles. I can hardly make out a word he's saying. Surely someone around the place has noticed this.

As if this isn't bad enough, at S5E15 they have introduced apparently a new character, Detective Singleton. Now, I don't have any real problem with him, except - he's also a mumbler. I can't understand anything he says.

Finally, there's Tom. Perhaps the most annoying person I've ever seen on the screen. From the moment he appeared, I lived in hope that they would soon write him out of the series. In case it would constitute a spoiler, I won't reveal whether they did or not.

One last thing; the spinoff "Blacklist Redemption", I have not seen, but have heard things about it, and none of them good. Spader is not in it, that's enough right there. It's very hard to understand why they even bothered.

So, if you're still reading this, and you haven't seen the show, well, I can tell you that halfway through season 5, there are still some shreds of the original premise left, but not very many. Mainly because of Mr. Spader, it is still watchable. Without him, I would have given it probably a 2 or 3 at best.

I have to agree with the majority here; this is the worst Columbo episode I've seen yet. I'm sure it's the direction, as it's full of inappropriate pauses, jumps, scenes that drag on too long, dialog that makes no sense. But I think I've seen other episodes directed by Patrick McGoohan, and I don't remember seeing these flaws before. So, what really ruined it? Was it inept writing? Did the producers influence the narrative? Were they trying to imitate Agatha Christie? I don't know, but I hope there are no more like this, because I am watching them in chronological order, and I enjoyed every one, up till now. If you haven't seen this one yet, I suggest you give it a miss.

I had to come in here and throw in my 2 cents, after seeing some number of people who trashed this film for sailing ineptitude and bad decisions.

Firstly, if you want a movie for and about sailors, this isn't it. Sure, there are some embarrassing gaffes, and I guess Robert isn't a sailor, else he wouldn't have agreed to do some of them.

But we have these morons here shooting off their mouths when they couldn't even pay attention or watch the whole movie. Someone said he didn't take water on the raft with him. He did. Someone else said he took a hat with him but didn't wear it. He did. Someone else said the resin repair he did on the hole was terrible. It kept the water out, what more should it do?

Others have trashed Robert Redford for giving a lame performance. This is a mistake. the fault is in the direction. I saw the same failings in Margin Call. In my opinion, J.C. Chandor is an unfit filmmaker, and shouldn't be allowed to make any more. Pretty much everything wrong with this production should be dumped straight on him. Done well, this would have been a terrific film. As it is, it's just watchable.