Reviews

As another reviewer pointed out, if you've ever worked in finance or any form of computer technology, this series is a horrible, insulting mess.

If your series is built around a central concept that is intrinsic to the plot, MAYBE you should have more than a drunk 3rd grader's knowledge of that subject?

Talking about complex financial and technology issues can be done - look at Margin Call and The Big Shortn or even one of the later Mission Impossible ones. It's about talking to the people who actually know the subject, then simplifying it enough to not insult them while still being comprehensible to the public.

This series does NONE of that. It throws around concepts and talk that make no sense to the public, while causing all the tech folks watching to go over and pound their head on the wall for how utterly stupid it is.

No to mention you have a series filled with unlikable sociopaths. Seriously, there's not a likeable character in the thing, not even most minor ones. They're all amoral selfish sociopaths. You get out of the first 3 episodes hoping that someone comes along and just outright murders the top 5 characters; it would certainly make the world a better place if that had happened and you'd feel satisfied as a viewer.

Do not waste your time on this. It's like the John Travola movie "Swordfish" without any decent dialog , plot, characters, or purpose. It makes the typical CSI:Miami episode look like an tech documentary.

The acting is about the same level as a Star Wars sequel - good actors floundering in a morass of horrid writing.

Don't bother. Go watch Swordfish instead. It's more accurate and entertaining. This series is just utter crap.

TL;DR: no, a bitcoin startup funded by drug dealer money will NOT suddenly revolutionize the global economy into a utopia of free market enterprise. Multiple people involved in this project should have their film school degrees revoked.

I'm through 5 episodes now, and it's just too much.

The setup is interesting and Collette is her usual excellent self but the rest of the story is a hot and IDIOTIC mess.

They've taken far too long to even give some basics of what the underlying issue is. 5 Epsiodes into a limited series and you still have zero clue as to what the real point is. Throwing random bits of info at the viewer is not "teasing" or "clever", it's failure to engage your audience who is left going "WTF does any of this disjointed crap have to do with anything?"

And Lord, the 30 year old daughter is head-poundingly stupid. I mean, talk about a character that's poorly written. No amount of angst or psychological issues can explain away the level of idiocy of this character. MAJOR stupidity every single episode.

And yes, the entire story would be pointless with a 10 minute conversation between mom and daughter at the beginning of the 2nd episode. But then, the hack writers wouldn't have gotten paid for pumping out filler for the rest of the series.

Skip it. The writing is just too bad to tolerate.

I'll echo what everyone else says: so bad it's not even worth a watch as a popcorn blockbuster.

Besides the terrible directing (which, along with the script, is why the acting was bad), I'll give a big shout out to whomever picked all the music.

GOD AWFUL covers of classic tunes. Not to mention poorly mated with the scenes they played in.

I mean, I haven't heard this level of sonic vomit in decades. I struggle to think of a worse score/soundtrack literally ever.

Imagine CCR's "Bad Moon Rising" sung as a Tori Amos number. (And I love both artists). Or what was probably once a Paul Oakenfold tune "re-imagined" by a 3rd rate LA Dj who only played high school proms before this. A classic Doors track done by a bad acoustic guitar-strumming emo band? All BADLY out of place with the scenes?

Yeah, head pounding bad, and my ears still haven't recovered.

First off: the whole controversy of the casting of a white actor as The Major was just stupid. The setting of the mana (let alone the anime) makes it clear that it's a hugely mixed-race place, as is common for the genre. The Major isn't Japanese. She, in fact, is very ill-defined as other than a robot.

The problem isn't that. The problem is Johansson, and that she's both horridly mis-cast (in terms of ability and presence) and that she's given a poor script to work with. Johansson does Black Widow well, but The Major is NOT some anime-version of BW.

It's a much more complex character to act - BW is a reasonably single-tone character with a complex backstory, but the CHARACTER is pretty simple to portray, in terms of how they act/emote. Or perhaps I might say that BW is really a consistent character in terms of how they appear/act.

The Major is not - you're looking for someone who can rapidly switch gears between an array of characterizations and "personality" types. Johansson simply can't do that, and several of The Major's characterizations are simply out of her wheelhouse.

You need someone with the ability of say Cate Blanchet or Jessica Chastain or Charlize Theron. Someone who can be terrifyingly competent, sexy silly, intense, flirty, and even openly self-contemplative, and swap between them between scene without seeming out of place. it's a tough job, and there's frankly not a lot of actors who can pull off that level of range.

It's made worse because the film script doesn't bother with much more than superficial resemblance to either the manga or anime before it. And that's NOT a good thing, because the new script is weak, once you look past the flashy visuals.

In many ways, this is like the Star Wars sequels and prequels: a lot of pretty good actors, miscast, or laboring under a crappy script. all layered over with distracting SFX to cover the fact that it's actually a pretty blah story.

NOT recommended to anyone, particularly anyone with prior experience in GITS media. You'll be sorely disappointed.

This is exactly what a good Halloween prank should look like. A little bit of gore, a little bit of T&A, outrageously stereotypical high school kids, and nothing in the way of a plot to worry about.

That's not to say it's not extremely successful at what it aspires to: good, silly fun for Halloween.

Completely self-aware of all the slasher films it mimics, and more than able to mine the comedy in those memes, this film is just a hoot. Not anywhere near as serious as the Scream franchise tries to be with the horror/slasher genre, this film takes the opposite tact: remember that these films are for fun and a bit of escapism.

A soft PG-13 would be the MPAA rating for this if it wasn't Netflix, and it's appropriate for your tweens. But if you're in your 30s or 40s, it's gonna be a lot more enjoyable, since you know and recognize all the tropes at play, but know that the filmmakers know and are just letting you have fun watching them play out.

I hope the three leads get more good work out of this, because they all do a fabulous job with the material - there's not a lot to work with, but each of the three (the babysitter, boy kid, and his bestie girl) give you a good show and don't fall into the trap that this film could easily have done: there's not a scenery chewer among them, and they all do a great job of keeping their eye on the prize: a silly, fun, bit nostalgic, Halloween slasher.

I'm being generous here with a three-star rating, mostly because I can see that the video-game violence and scantily-dressed teen girls (even though they're all played by 20-somethings) might have an appeal to a certain audience.

First off, how on earth is this a PG-13 movie? Oh, that's right, you don't get a R these days unless there's some bare tits, or an actual disembowelment shown. Don't be fooled by the "fantasy" violence claim - sure, it's not Saving Private Ryan realism, but the violence is still presented in a realistic manner (sidestepped with the "but it's only a dream" shtick). There's also more than enough "shake-your ass and tits for the camera, girls" action to disqualify this from any semblance of modesty - let's face it, this is blatant sexual exploitation and gratuitous sex, all presented with a veneer of clothing to make it past the MPAA.

The CGI is passable - it's at the quality level of a good XBox 360 game. The fight scenes are ludicrous (not even really entertaining in an over-the-top way). The settings are ridiculous (even for a "dream" sequence) - how's a 10-foot tall traditional samurai with a MINIGUN fit in? It doesn't, it's just there to look cool, which fails - it's just ridiculous. Dialogue - well, I guess, the best thing that can be said is there's little of it, so we only have to cringe occasionally when some cliché movie quote is tossed out like it was from Moses on the Temple Mount.

Finally, there's no plot. None at all. We're presented with an interesting premise at the opening, then it really goes nowhere. No character involvement either - each of the girls is a cardboard cutout, with the supporting cast as a bunch of stereotypical bad-guy (or bad-girl) roles filled by real actors who must have been either paid a huge amount to debase their skills in this thing (I can't call it a movie), or were simply bamboozled by the script.

Don't see this. More importantly, don't let your teenage son or daughter see it; I'd classify this thing as more damaging to a teenager than watching a full blood-and-sex film like Shoot Em Up.

In the end, this comes across as what a 13-year-old boy (raised on XBox) thinks is cool, what at 15-year-old boy who (who surfs internet porn) thinks is sexy, and what a 17-year-old Emo boy thinks is deep and meaningful. The sick thing? It's made by a 45-year-old "man".

I'd second another review that notes the "new" 90210 pretty much lacks any semblance of the original 90210. The story lines don't match up well, we don't really identify with the characters, the backstories are trite to thin, and, the dialog is terrible.

I honestly don't know why it is labeled 90210. It far more resembles another 90s' Aaron Spelling vehicle: Melrose Place. If you happen to remember that old series and liked it, well, the new 90210 is eerily similar, with about 5 year younger actors, and right up your alley. If you're too young to remember M.P., I'd suggest you go watch reruns of the original 90210 to see what you're missing. The original wasn't great TV, but it certainly was good TV. On the best day, this new remake stretches to be mediocre. Skip it.

I just saw this on TV - it was on Showtime, and I had some time. Note that I've not see Pattinson before, and am decidedly not in the demographic for this movie.

The script is a bit of a mess, with some leaps and jerks in scenes that detract from the moods, and some very noticeable lack of background in key areas. Pattinson's character's family (excepting the younger sister) are basically 2D cutouts. Attempts to give the father some depth fall flat in the end. De Ravin is pretty without being saccharine, though the script really fails to give her something to make us understand the character. Her character's tragedy doesn't seem to effect her (or, have any definition or reflection in her), unlike her father's.

As far as the acting goes, well, its OK. Most of the actors do a good job with the rather slim material they're given - it's certainly not their fault their characters aren't well described. I did like the little sister, though, and noticed the actress did a good job of underplaying the part, which is difficult for a 11-year-old. I can't tell if it was Pattinson or the role, but, the brooding/depressive/coy thing doesn't really stick well. It feels false.

All that said, the themes of the film were strong, and relatively well thought out. Thematically, this was a well-executed story, with just about the right amount of anger, pathos, and redemption.

*** Spoiler *** Unlike others, I think the final coda of the movie is appropriate, and not exploitative. I don't think it was to make any sort of political point, rather, it was to advance the plot thread of tragedy and recovery. Honestly, it was just as appropriate as would having him die in some accident, with the overtone of casting the family's tragedy as a microcosm of what every victim's family of the event might have gone through.

Overall, this is a hard movie to get excited about. Pattinson fans aren't really going to get the thematic elements, and the mediocre script isn't sufficient for the acting talent. There's a good movie in there somewhere, but it needed a better director and screenwriter than it got.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the number of comments giving Cruel Intentions equal (or even better) standings than Dangerous Liaisons. Being based on the same material (as well as 1989's "Valmont"), both tell the same story using similar characters (though set in different eras). The difference lies in the focus. Cruel Intentions plays the 1990s teen drama card, focusing on style and looks, with heavy emphasis on flash and sex, and an in-your-face lack of subtlety. Dangerous Liaisons' is all about hidden intrigue and motives, forcing the viewer to concentrate on dialog and subtext rather than visuals. That isn't to say that the 18th-century settings and costumes aren't fabulous (the Oscar was well deserved).

There are some minor flaws (some will complain about the casting & acting of Reaves and Pfeiffer), and the pacing in a couple of places seems at odds with the storyline. However, the dialog is masterful and Close and Malkovich deliver amazingly textured performances. Seldom is the evil man (and woman) do to each other - and themselves - so well portrayed.

Not to be condescending, but Dangerous Liaisons really is for the more mature audience - one able to enjoy the more subtle and complex dialog and motivations of the characters. Cruel Intentions is for the teenage set; Dangerous Liaisons is for the more experienced (and perhaps more cynical) folks.