Reviews

I bought the Bu-ray, thinking perhaps Paris would be more attractive than the version I saw years ago on some cable network.

NO... it's still unacceptable. This film might as well have been shot in Hobken, New Jersey.. Even on the boat looking at all of Paris' wonders, you see nothing clearly, or brightly. "Terrible Photography". To make matters even worse, the entire Paris background was a film running in the background during the boat scenes, and the boat was a set in a studio in Burbank, Ca.. The only beautiful exteriors were shot when Audrey was on vacation in the Alps. That was shot 'as you see it'. Very nice. Everything else except the market place was shot on a lot at Universal Studios in Burbank.. What a waste.

The story has been told a hundred times before, and the only thing I like about it is the cast. Nothing else really impresses me. Poorly executed, terribly photographed, predictable ending. Hitchcock would have never made this movie.

I'll give it two stars for Cary, and Audrey..

There were two serious mistakes made in this film in casting, and in the beginning. If these errors hadn't occurred, it would have made money.

1st Casting: Gerard Butler should never have been cast to play Set. He's a nice guy, but his acting isn't A list, and he doesn't have a large following.. He just keeps playing the same "excited version of himself" in everything he does.

2nd: The beginning should have just been Set sneaking into Osiris chambers, and killing him, then stealing Horus' eyes while he slept, because, once you get past that terrible beginning with Butler rambling on that stage which feels like 2 hours, the movie gets great. That sequence was almost 1/3 of the movie's budget. It's boring, too long, and totally unnecessary. Even if they left everything else alone in the movie, it had a good chance of making money, not only by improving the movie, but in the enormous portion of the budget that sequence cost.

I have the Blu-ray, and watch it often. I love the story, and the visual effects, photography, and just the "look" of the film. However, when I watch it, I skip the beginning completely, and start with chapter 3. From that point forward it doesn't have a boring moment. It's great.

After watching all three seasons, I've come to the conclusion that Jonathan Ames is a closet case twisted fetish homosexual. Not the character, the "creator" and writer of the series.

Considering factually that the greater percentage of society are heterosexual, Mr. Ames has subjected us to George, Ray, and Jonathan spooning in bed while sleeping together, Ray and Greene making out, Ray dating elderly old ladies and enjoying them sexually, Johnathan doing a 3 way with one girl and two guys, and he can't stop commenting on the other guy's penis size, George describing to Johnathan his obsession with women that don't shave their underarm hair, a Police officer addicted to S&M, and craving getting his rear end slapped while eating his wife's birth control pills, a trip to a local spa to help a transvestite marry his male Doctor, George's daughter was a "plushy" (makes love to people dressed up in furry animal costumes), half of an episode devoted to George and Johnathan fulfilling a Jewish comedian's fetish to have her feet massaged, Ray's career is drawing a man with a 20 foot penis, and has a fetish cult following group, a Sperm Bank owner, and Johnathan's real father, supplied all the sperm for the bank himself (to cut costs by not paying for spluge from sperm donors), and has more kids than our minds can comprehend, Ray is also a sperm supplier, by jacking off 37 times a day in his bathroom in a cup (as long as he eats enough sunflower seeds) and lastly in this episode George is spooning with a black queer, and trying to connect to his "homosexual other side".

If you remove the aforementioned activity with George experimenting with homosexuality in this episode, I believe it could have been rated one of the highest of the series offerings.

The queer aspects aside, this episode has very interesting characters as well as all of the cast members including Olivia Thirlby, (whom I get a kick out of listening to her run out of breath at the end of each sentence she speaks) all rolled up into one clever episode filmed in a unique and entertaining restaurant. However, the creator of this series just can't seem to leave his sexual hangups out of his episodes, he uses this show to express them. Lucky us. Well, I guess HBO just had enough if it, and the nail in the coffin was when Ted Danson's wife shows up, and totally destroys the second half of the last season.

If this series followed the example of the first few episodes in Season 1, it would still be on HBO. The longer it ran, the more twisted it became..

This chapter could have been one of the series best episodes.

Before I owned the DVD, I would watch this whenever it was on cable. Each time the movie ended, I would say to my self: "That is the most disjointed movie I have ever seen, and I keep watching it anyway."

Last night I popped in the DVD and tried to figure out why I watched it so often. My first thought was every scene with Ellen Barkin could have been cut out. She isn't very talented nor attractive, and her character seems forced into the script.

Besides the quirky unique plot, the soundtrack may be what I liked best. The music is an example of the best music the early 80s had to offer. Also the theme music written for the movie is totally addicting, and I will probably continue to watch it, because it puts me in a good mood. It's a feel good flick, and the music is a big part of it.

Mystery solved.

Words 1 & 2 = "Mary Steenburgen"

HBO knew they were stuck with Steenburgen once she played George's new girlfriend. (She is Ted Danson's real life wife) What was she doing on a show in which Danson dates a new girl each episode? It had to be the dumbest thing Johnathan Ames ever did with this series.

She totally destroyed 4 episodes. Danson's character George was reduced to ashes, and the viewership of the show dropped by 60% near the end of the 3rd season. I'm guessing this whole mess was conceived by Ames, but if it was Danson's idea because of pressure from his wife....then "Shame on you Ted".

The episodes she was in were the absolute worst in the series history. Watching her dancing on George's bed to entertain him, and hearing her sing at the end of the last episode, were two things the average mortal was not built to endure. :-)

Sometimes I think... 'a wife does need to stay home' and just be a wife. Nothing personal toward Steenburgen, I enjoyed her in "Back to the Future 3" in the 80s. However, she is 70 years old at this writing, and doesn't look like anyone's girlfriend. Just because her husband is on a series, is no reason to drag her into it, especially for more than "one" episode.

Of course then there's the fact that the greater percentage of society are heterosexual, Mr. Ames has subjected us to George, Ray, and Jonathan spooning in bed while sleeping together, Ray and Greene making out, Ray dating elderly old ladies and enjoying them sexually, Johnathan doing a 3 way with one girl and two guys, and he can't stop commenting on the other guy's penis size, George describing to Johnathan his obsession with women that don't shave their underarm hair, a Police officer addicted to S&M, and craving getting his rear end slapped while eating his wife's birth control pills, a trip to a local spa to help a transvestite marry his male Doctor, George's daughter was a "plushy" (makes love to people dressed up in furry animal costumes), half of an episode devoted to George and Johnathan fulfilling a Jewish comedian's fetish to have her feet massaged, Ray's career is drawing a man with a 20 foot penis, and has a fetish cult following group, a Sperm Bank owner, and Johnathan's real father, supplied all the sperm for the bank himself (to cut costs by not paying for spluge from sperm donors), and has more kids than our minds can comprehend, Ray is also a sperm supplier, by jacking off 37 times a day in his bathroom in a cup (as long as he eats enough sunflower seeds) and lastly George spoons with a black queer, so he can connect to his "homosexual other side".

:-)

Is it a secret that Hefner's girlfriends got real used to the 'good life', and when he moved on to someone new, the old one had to leave the mansion, and move back into her studio apartment?

Is it a secret that men applied for jobs at Playboy because they "really" liked naked women?

Is it a secret that most men that own a popular business, provide their close friends with perks?

Is it a secret that all prospective Playmates showed up at Playboy ready to bare it all for international distribution, and took off all their clothes the very first day for test photos?

Is it a secret that most women wouldn't pose nude for "any publication"?

Is it a secret that most women regret some of their decisions and actions from their past when they were young and naive?

Any Playmate Centerfold that entered the Playboy Mansion property after she was published, was well aware that she was taking a risk for better or worse. Unfortunately for some.... it was for the worse. Her job posing for Playboy was completed. Why was she at the mansion afterwards?

... If there is a secret... that's it.

Cons: Dark, gray, dreary, depressing and too realistic a look at Eastern Europe. You won't be smiling at the end.

Charlize Theron is way too full of herself in this movie. She is also too old and fragile for the part. I've never seen a more conceited character in a movie. You don't like her from the beginning, right through till the end.

Pros: It's not boring. It moves along at a bone crunching pace. The stunts are well performed, both the physical, and the robotic.

James McAvoy is his usual talented self, providing me with most of the entertainment.

Summary: When slender women are pounded in the face by extremely strong men, they don't get up and continue fighting. Their face is usually broken, along with the rest of their bones. This movie is a Charlize Theron fantasy she created for herself. Her ego is the biggest and brightest element in this film. It should be called: "Atomic Baloney"

Theron won an Oscar for playing a truck stop murderer years ago. It both saved, and ruined her career. She had fame for winning, but she made her beautiful self so unappealing in the process, that I've never been able to look at her the same since. No matter how hard she tries to be sexy, or pretty, I always still see that ugly monstrous truck stop beast she transformed herself into for that role. I believe this movie was her attempt at trying to regain her sex appeal, but she failed miserably, mainly because of her ego, conceit, and age.

Worth a watch to kill a couple of hours, but no sequel is needed...please.

I hated the sequel. It was pure garbage. However, after seeing the prequel, and noticing all these bad reviews for it, I felt compelled to defend it.

For you young whippersnappers out there, who thought the complicated plot was too much to handle...well, it's actually world history. Yes, some of history's charters like Rasputin were over done, President Wilson never slept with Mata Hari, (she was a spy executed in 1917), and the Kingsman characters were filled in to tell the story, but its foundation is based on factual events.

The three movies in the franchise were all completely different in tone. The first one was the best hands down.

The 2nd was the usual terrible sequel trying to be bigger and better, and failing terribly in all departments. I like to think Channing Tatum was to blame, because if I never saw him again in a movie it would be too soon, but with him or without him the movie SUCKED.

The third, the prequel, was a serious movie, and a history lesson. It was compelling and well done, and as usual Ralph Fiennes was great.

So, we have the original, a comical action packed spy thriller. The sequel, a complete mess with terrible casting, and embarrassing directing. And, the prequel, a well acted history lesson in HD. I liked it.

If you can learn to separate them into three different categories of movies, and not try and find the "original" in the prequel, you may discover that it's a pretty good film.

This Roman history lesson is all you will ever get from Hollywood that is anywhere close to the truth. However, it still took artistic license too far in my opinion.

It's one thing to have fictitious characters in a story to see it from a misanthropic perspective, or to help move it along, and it's another thing to mix fictitious characters into real events to make it more convenient for the story tellers.

Writers, directors, and producers have a responsibility to their audience when they are presenting productions based on history...especially Roman history, because of the length of time they ruled the world, and how all other governments on this planet took some of Rome's example.

Three things bothered me about this series: First, our two fictitious friends whose family, and enemies are so beautifully written to keep us all wanting more, should not be mingled in with the actual history itself. It's pandering, and misleading.

Second: The new Octavian can't hold a candle to the original actor. I'm beginning to think that the first actor who played Octavian was too likable, and in history Octavian was not a likeable character. Or, perhaps he was just too young to play an adult leader. In either case, they did a terrible job replacing him. The the new actor had none of the seriousness, or smarts the original actor had, and he smiled in all the wrong places. I don't think I can even remember a scene in the 1st season where Octavian cracks a smile. He was all business, and damn good at it. The change almost ruined the 2nd season for me.

Third: I loved the first season. It was glorious, and well done though the gratuitous sex, and violence may have been overdone a bit ...even though it was a big part of Rome... it's a big part of 'everywhere' and 'every time'. My main beef with season 2 besides the new Octavian character, is that it felt like they changed whomever was in charge of everything. It was slower, more repetitive, and edited like a drawn out soap opera.

The film makers definitely lost some of their creative talent in season two. Still...this is about as good as it gets on television.

The reason this movie isn't the fun ride you'd expect from this director, is the director's fault 100%.

He destroys a good plot which should have slowly unfolded in sequence, into a catastrophe of flashbacks. I am shocked at Luc Besson for his horrible editing job. I 'was' a big fan of his.

The 2nd issue that wreaks in this movie is the lack of ANY chemistry between Cillian Murphy, and Sasha Luss. Again...the director's fault. If there is ZERO chemistry, do your job and DIRECT. If that doesn't work, fire Murphy, because I think Luss did a better job in this movie than Murphy did. The scene that stands out to me is the one in the closet. Murphy acts like his 'real life wife' is standing on set right behind him in that closet. He is a sexless robot in that scene, a scene which was designed to begin a romance between the two main characters.

I've read reviews that knock Luss' acting abilities, but I just didn't see it. I thought she did a great job in a role that shows many sides of a complex character.

Still worth a watch. Good action, locations, and cinematography.

I bought this Blu-ray not seeing the movie first. I've tried 4 times to get through it, and I still haven't managed to.

The beginning is OK with her as a bicycle messenger, and martial arts student, but once the movie gets into the main "plot" it falls apart. It's just dreadful.

Most of the blame goes on the director. He's just TERRIBLE. Too many errors to mention them all.... just awful directing.

The rest goes to the screen writer, and the "over rated" Vikander. She makes so many rookie mistakes in this film, it is almost unbelievable this girl won an acting Oscar. See's just terrible in this movie.

I never really cared for Angelina very much, but after seeing Vikander's take on Lara Croft, I have a whole new appreciation for my old Tomb Raider DVDs.

Negatives: Bad script, bad director, childish senseless story, terrible acting, la de da locations, boring,

Positives: None.

Anyone want a Blu-ray cheap... contact me.

This final Bond installment with Craig had the potential to be his best Bond movie. However, poor casting and character development, made that impossible.

The good: Cinematography, locations, Story, action, and directing.

The poor: Rami Malek, the villain, is by far the absolute WORST Bond villain in the history of the franchise. He will literally "put you to sleep". Perhaps he was nervous and decided to swallow an entire bottle of Valium before each take.

Lashana Lynch, plays Bond's replacement when he retires. (Nomi) Although her acting was OK, her character is totally unnecessary in the movie, and she gives me the impression that the Producers were more interested in being politically correct than making a great film. They could have cut 30 minutes off this over-length film by simply adding her character to the cutting room floor.

This movie is in my top 10 movie list in life. It is a cinema achievement that may never be outdone by 'anyone'. Considering that this masterpiece was shot digitally in 2007, it is miles above any CG effort since.

For those of you that haven't seen it: "SEE IT". Besides a great story (with one flaw), this film makes illusion and simulation become reality.

The one flaw: I have great respect for David Fincher, and I am going to go out on a limb and say that he must have been aware of this discrepancy, but went ahead with the story-line as written anyway. ( I hope that's the case). Benjamin Button was born "old", and regressed backwards to die an infant. The flaw in the story-line (and it's a big one), is that as he regresses to youth, he begins to have dementia (Alzheimer's symptoms), along with all of the arthritic pains and problems an old man gets as he ages. At the end, before he dies he loses his memory completely.

Logically, since he was born an old man, those illnesses should have evolved from birth, and improved as he regressed in age. Strangely in the film, he is born with severe arthritis, and can't even walk until he is 7. Why then would he again experience these same symptoms as a child on the way to his death bed (or crib)? He should be in perfect health as a child, and regress to a "fetus", and then disappear.

Other than that major flaw, this movie is a 10. Unfortunately because of the illogical way he dies, I had to give it a 9 out of 10 stars.

One other issue with the plot: If we were to take this movie scenario and try to place it in the real world, Benjamin would have to have been born a "full sized", old man, and then after 70 or 80 years, he would have begun to shrink. Since the idea of a woman giving birth to a full sized man is physically impossible, our Benjamin had to be born old and "tiny". This of course is another contradiction in the plot, since Benjamin is small "twice in his life". We can't dwell on this flaw at all, because if we did we would never get passed it. To enjoy this movie, we must put all the facts and logistics of this scenario aside, and when we do, this movie takes us on a journey unlike any other ever filmed.

Preview

The most depressing miserable movie of the 21st century. This may be the most unnecessary movie ever filmed. If you've ever contemplated suicide, but were too chicken to pull it off, watch this movie the next time you're thinking about it, and we'll never hear from you again.

I have no idea how this disaster ever got green lit. The Los Angeles that is contrived in this film is one I hope no one ever experiences. Yes, life begins, then it ends for all of us. Some have a happier, longer version of life than others. Most of us go to the theater to avoid that reality, not embrace it.

Why Hollywood would green-light a script detailing the absolute worst scenarios of human suffering, and film it in depressing film stock and filters to further enhance the most morbid elements of life, I just don't understand. I would rate it a 1, however Jessica Biel reveals herself for the first time, and I figured that was worth a point.. Unless you love EXTREME depression, and disgusting surroundings...PASS.

The first time I saw this, I didn't have the luxury of subtitles to help me understand the dialog, which is sometimes hard to dissect because of English speaking actors talking with Russian accents. I rated it a 6.

My last viewing was on DVD, and I put on the subtitles so as to keep up with the plot. I upgraded my review to a 7. I would give it a 7.5 if IMDb allowed me to.

This is not an action spy movie. There are no James Bond moments in it. It is a cold war movie deeply relying on a well thought out plot and twists to carry it through to it's climax. You can't miss a word of it, or the name of a character, or you'll be lost in confusion. This is a thinkers movie. Don't sit down to watch it with your kids. They'll hate it, and there are serious sexual undertones as well as a very naked Jennifer Lawrence. The sex is needed here, because Lawrence's character is part of a sexual driven spy program the Russians call: Red Sparrow.

I found this flick to be a welcome relief from the childish drek that Hollywood has been putting out for decades. You'll need an IQ above 80 to really enjoy this piece, and you have to like great stories, and not be an action junkie. If that's you...go watch it, you'll love it.

I only found two minor drawbacks to this movie. 1: It is a bit dreary. The sets, the weather, and the locations are dull. Actually, pretty much like we imagine eastern Europe to be like. 2: I felt no chemistry between Lawrence and Joely Richardson who plays her mother. It was almost like Lawrence and Richardson had an off-set argument, and they dragged it onto the set, and never resolved it for the duration of the flick. Strange, because the driving force behind Lawrence's character is to save her sick mother from losing her place to live, and having the Russian State pay for her medical bills.

Other than those minor drawbacks,this is a very solid spy thriller.

Actually, I just learned it is the second to the last season, as the 11th season will definitely be the series finale. They should have ended it with Emmy's departure. The shameless people now are the producers, who would try any trick for a paycheck rather than getting creative, letting the cast move on, and pursuing a new venture.

Dominic West blew me away with the ease he projected the essence and beauty of the writer's dialog from Hollywood heaven. A show that actually had something meaningful to say, and it couldn't have been said better.

This episode should be a mandatory view for all in film schools. Hats off to all involved, from actors to sound track.

Why did I only give it a 9? There was some subject matter I personally found repulsive, however, that's my hangup, and this season finale will be a 10 I'm sure to most.

This will be short, and not too sweet.

My first observation is, I think the creators, cast and crew think this is an episode of epic proportions, and is the favorite of many in the production company. I think it was very good as well, but there were a couple of strange goings on I didn't really get.

First: The men in the 18th century (including the King of France) didn't have much stamina in bed. I believe three thrusts was his blasting point.

Our hero Jim Fraser actually got four accomplished before he sent Claire back through the stones. There must have been a lot of frustrated women in the 1700s. :-)

On a serious note, I must say that the actress playing Brianna (I won't mention her name here, as not to embarrass her), is perhaps the worst actress I've ever seen in this usually flawlessly acted show. It was the first episode I've ever seen her in, and she truly almost made me change the channel. Perhaps she just needs some acting classes, or at worst, a new profession.

I loved the first one, and bought the Blu-ray the day it came out. I couldn't wait for the sequel. I kept checking on its release date to be sure and see it as soon as I could.

Then, I noticed a couple of things I didn't like before I even saw it. Two actors I personally don't care to watch perform are in the cast of this sequel. That would be Julianne Moore and Channing Tatum. So, I lost interest and waited until it showed up on cable.

Sequels always make the "exact same mistakes": Throw in names that have no business being in the movie, and try to make it bigger, and better by spending more money in the budget, of which none of these things make a better movie than the original. All the producers have to do is watch the original again, lock on to what made it magic, then give it a new plot, and have at it.

This movie sequel truly is a piece of genuine garbage.

We can discuss the fact that Blomkvisk might as as well not even be in the movie, and that's true, however, I don't watch these movies for his character at all.

We can discuss Foy's job as Lisbeth, and in my opinion it was adequate, and certainly didn't detract from the film's quality. However, removing her sexuality by eliminating any nudity, and keeping her sexual activity virtually nonexistent, could have been a grave error.

We can discuss that the movie is absolutely nothing like the book, however, this is a movie, not a book, and the director did a hell a job keeping the pace up, and the action scenes were excellent.

The major issue is that this movie was one of the biggest box office flops of the century, and for me it all came down to one moment in one scene. If I was in the theater watching this movie, I would have walked out after the "bridge scene". Watching it at home, I just got a bit pissed off that I bought the Blu-ray, however, it was good enough everywhere else to warrant my rating in my opinion.

For those of you that might not have been paying attention, that scene was just plain STUPID, and it's hard to understand why the director didn't change or re-shoot that scene after reviewing the daily's or in editing.

The bad guys are killing everyone in the movie, and have tried to kill Lisbeth on numerous occasions, the last incident involved her being injected with a numbing agent during a life or death battle, they kidnap the boy, kill everyone in their wake, and when she finally out maneuvers them on the bridge, instead of killing them and ending it all, she leaves them "alive" in the crashed car, just so when she gets back in her car with the boy, they can simply start shooting automatic weapons at her again.

It was such a rookie mistake, that the director must take the blame for the box office failure, and go into some serious meditation for an indefinite period of time. :-)

If she killed had them, the movie would have been an improvement, because she would be done eliminating the original trio of killers, she then could have looked back and saw her sister standing on the bridge. "There", is where she would make the logical decision to leave the scene, as to not kill her sibling. That makes sense, and the movie would have proceeded with the remaining pack of bad guys the sister had anyway, and we could have gotten some midway movie satisfaction from Lisbeth at least finishing off the original team of murderers.

Fixing that scene, and keeping Lisbeth true to her sexuality, may have saved the box office.

A couple of decent episodes since the opener, but this week was a real barfer. There's 2 left this season that have already been shot. If they're anything like this week's disaster, this show won't have a 9th episode. I see the cast and crew have been voting this show up, because there is no way this episode of an already shaky show gets anywhere near a 7. I don't think the writers nor the directors have successfully taken this unstable concept to viable on going series status.

We all know that the carnivores that eat our animals, somehow divorce themselves from the reality that the animal had to be butchered, hung, and sliced, so they can enjoy their disgusting eating habits. However, "most" would not want to have seen the animal they are eating actually being killed. I'll put money on it.

Today, IMDb wouldn't leave me alone with advertising this series. They shoved it down my throat at every click. Can't really blame IMDb, because they've got to make a buck, so they sold you the ad space, and I would be drawn to critique this series tonight. Within the first 4 minutes of this show, I was bludgeoned visually, and the image you forced on me of an animal being slaughtered so you could fill your shock value quota for the season, will forever be in my memory banks as one of the most disgraceful atrocities I've ever seen on television.

In summary, I'll never forgive your irresponsibility and I hope your show fades away like the dust from the stool that will dry after the animal eaters s**t out that poor pig.