Reviews

The Unforgivable is one of the movies that dont shy away from painting the real picture of how life actually is!

It portrays life of a woman in her forties as she tries to reconnect with her young sister after being in prison for about 20 years and the challenges she faces as a convict.

It is a slow burn that is carefully crafted as it drifts trying to convey the message it carries. Scenes are not rushed and superimpose on one another perfectly. And the plot twist at the end is a final nail of the coffin of awesomeness.

Sandra Bullocks performance is brilliant and realistic. I have read some few negative reviews about people who were put off by her long and depressive face. And i think that is a rather idiotic take given the premises of this story.

The only things that are kind of a let down which prohibits this movie from getting a perfect score are th plotholes which are forgivable. One, Ruth went to prison when her young sis was 5 years old, fast foward 20 years later and the young sis who supposed to be 25 looks like a teenager. Two, final plot twist we learn that the 5 years old is the one that actually did the killing, we are supposed to believe a 5 years old tiny girl could handle and aim a shotgun!! Third, the cheating scene wasnot necessary and was just thrown onto us for the convinience of the movie.

Its about a guy called Thomas Ripley who goes to Italy to convience his supposed friend to go back to America and later ended up killing and impersonating him The first thing i would like to address, is all the negative reviews. Most of them compares this show to the "Talented Mr. Ripley" movie and argues Andrew Scott is too old to play Ripley. I beg to differ! I normally like to judge the show as it is, the reality of what it intends to portray and if it delivers on that.

Who is Tom Ripley? And How is he supposed to be portrayed?. Ripley is a con artist, who can forge passports, create fake IDs, murder in his convience, lie to the police and impersonate people. This type of experties needs years to accumulate and perfect and thats why it makes more sense if Ripley is an older guy who looks like is in his late forties than Matt's twentiesh look.

The tv show took time to show us who Ripley was before he went to Europe which justifies what he does when he reaches there. There is something so cold about Andrew's Ripley persona that hits you as you watch the show that justifies him commiting those murders. But Matt Damon's Ripley is abit different, he kinda looks naive and innocent. Like a kid who is learning to be con artist but doesnt have the experties to kill and evade police all over Europe.

Other characters have more depth and personality than in the movie. Talk about Marge, in the Tv show she is made to be smart and curious. Just not some girl who is madly in love with her cheating boyfriend and follows him around like in the movie. And this serves its purpose in the movie as her curiosity justifies why she would be so curious about the truth on accusation of murder made against her fiance and Ripley's intentions. Dickie in the movie was more interesting than in the show thou. A guy who living in Europe without working depending on his dad's money is probably supposed to have charisma, he is supposed to be irresponsible and fun. The Italian inspector who was on Dickies case was better in the show. He managed to give you that annoying aura of detectives as they investigate stuff intellegently.

The tv show also took sometime in crafting justified sequence of events. In the boat scene, Ripley trying to hide the body and burn evidence makes sense. The murder of Freddie and trying to evade the police. You can feel the sheer chill as walls close on Ripley.

People also did have the problem with black and white cinematography. I agree, it didnt strike me at first but as the show precided i came to understand its purpose. It fits the genre ( murder mystery) and the period which the story takes place

The dialogue was okay as in it wasnt cringy and it befits the time the story takes place and the ethinicity of the characters It is a great show, i highly recommend it so ignore the negative review and enjoy.

Story/ plot

• a teen girl with split personality disorder seeks reveng on pharmaceutical company that held from the market a drug that d help in treating her mom dying from cancer

Reality of the movie n plotholes

• so the teen girl (isabela merced) seeked revenge against big pharma who were using mercenaries to bury their secrets, the statement alone is laughable. Its not real n its impossible. Funny thing is she was given like a year post her moms death to train in combart n weaponry during the most traumatic period of her life after she had lost both her parents.

• Most of the movie is acted by Jason Mamoa n during the third act is where its revealed, its the daughter( teen girl) who was just seeing herself in her dads body. And this is where we deduct that she must have had a split personality disorder. If the writers knew they were going in this direction then they could have atleast researched about it to make a believable character. There is nothin about this kid except the trauma that screams split personality, it was just thrown onto us for the convinience of the story
• In the 1st act, the doc reveals to the family that they maybe an experimental medications that d help with the moms cancer. They could have atleast bothered to do a little research on the protocols of putting someone on a trial drug. They didnt bother to mention the type of cancer and also docs dont just go around promising patients n loved ones that they gona be okay based on the drug thats on trial.

• This one of those action movies where a tiny teen girl fights with trained mercenaries and outfights them. They shielded us from this by using Jason Mamoa but later learning that it was the girl with the split personality doing the fighting throws away all the reality and the authenticity

Characters

• normally reviews the characters in terms of likeability, development and reality
• So the characters are fairly likeable, the family scenes in the 1st act are greatly crafted. Though the law enforcement (FBI) have been significantly dumbed down so they are not likeable, same goes for the senator
• Zero character development because central stars did develop at all according to the roles they were given. There was no grieve period for the family that lost their mom/ wife they loved dearly. No character development for the sweet girl that suffered spit persona
• No reality for the characters. The man who lost his wife but didnt grieve. The girl with split persona who doesnt have any signs n symptoms. The dumb FBI. The mercenaries who are thrown around n getting killed by a tiny teen girl.

Dialogue/ monologue

• convincing but forgettable and uninteresting

Cinematography

• Good as in serves the purpose of the movie

Rating: 4/10 because atleats i could finish the movie.

Gangs of london season 1 is one those tv shows which are so good but doesnt have enough popularity and recognition. It was neatly written, characters were likeable, their development was convincing and the direction of the plot was purely justifiable. The action scenes were intellegently merged in the storyline Season 2 felt suddenly very bad! I watched the first episode and i was completely disappointed. It felt like they changed the writers and directors. Its only the nolstagia of season 1 that kept me watching it expecting it to get better but it didnt. I am going to review it in the following aspects; plot, cinematography, acting and the action scenes, characters, dialogue. The plot was okay but the way it unfolds was poorly written, so basically its about gang power dynamics n balance shift after the fall of the wallace family. The scenes seemed rushed, and alot of stories just mashed together to give a watcher a certain idea of what was goingon. The direction the plot took at some points was unjustifiable and it suffered from alot of plotholes. Eg. Assif brought koba to secure desclipline amongst the gangs but it seemed like koba had more power than Assif without any levarage, there was no point in ressuructing Sean Wallace who suffered a headshot in the first season, so many unjustifiable betrayals literally everybody is betraying everyone, whoever released Sean from prison didnt seem existent and couldnt elicit any form of control over him, its only justified if Sean was actually motivated to kill Elliot who tried to kill him in the first season. In season finale, Elliot fights and beats Sean and gets a seat on the table, what was he worthy to other gang members, he didn't have connections, infrastructures or any leverage The cinematrography maybe is the only good thing about season 2, the colour tone and the camera angles were okay. The acting was okay too as in nothing seemed cringy and forced but there was alittle bit too much unjustified blood shed and gore! I get we liked the same action scenes in the first season but back then they weren't overdone, and were intelligently mixed that a person actually missed them. The characters were easily forgettable and unlikable, there was little or poor character develpment and only few characters had justifiable motivation. Eg. Seam Wallace at first he appeared as person who was on the revenge mission for who plotted to kill him, then he was about power, then about family trying to save his brother within a very thin chemistry between the characters. The characters appeared out of nowhere for the convinience of the story eg the madam drug dealer Sean/ Koba went to see in Paris. The wasn't enough reason to push Alex Dumani to commit suicide, he just didn't look that cornered. His father Ed Dumani, his character seemed principled and powerful in the first season but it is so badly written is season 2 that it doesn't have any edges, he seems floating everywhere, his actual power and inclusiveness in the gangs seems non existent. Finally the dialogue, well the only thing you can say about it is that it was non existent and uninteresting.

I looked for this tv-show because it had a convincing trailer only to find out it was no where near as good as the trailer showed.

I arrived at 5 stars rating as follows;-

1. Visuals were okay! The color tone was a good choice as it gave you that sense of serial-killerness. Except for a few moments of shaky camera during action scenes! So in terms of visuals it scored 8/10 2. The dialogues was good! It was believable, the moments the characters argued you feel the intensity of the scenes! I thought the south-african accents were believable (tho amnt South-African). So again 8/10 for dialogues and monologues 3. Action-choreography. Its an action-thriller so i think its only fair if you rate the action scenes. The nothing special for the few action scenes in this movie. They didnt impress and yet they didnt dissapoint. The gun shots sounded okay and believable. Ratings here is 5/10 as in they were torelable.

MAJOR SET-BACKS 4. The Plot which i rated 2/10. They came up with good story for this thriller as in serial-killer pursuit by a policewoman who mental trauma for childhood abduction and abuse has nice punch in it.

• But ohh boy! Did the fail to deliver! The plot had so many plotholes that couldnt be ignored which made story ubelievable. To mention a few:-

* bad guys appeared out of nowhere for conviniency of the plot.

* the main antagonist( the serial killer) wasnt not smart enough to have lasted that long on the loose. I mean for gods sake! He was a well known person who picked up his victims out in the open ( The village market). One eye witness was enough to point our that the victim who died was last seen with a certain person * Reyka retracted her statement to free Speelman without knowing the adress he was being released to. As in seriously! They want to believe that she was kidnapped and lived in that farm house all those years later became a police and the she didnt know where she was kept. In the last episode her daughter is kidnapped to the same location. And she had to ask around to get the location.

* the police chief was running a snitch( who later turned to be a serial-killer) without knowing where he lived. Smh! So thats how dumb police are!

* Reyka was placed undercover in the final mission to set up a honey trap for a person who already knows she is police (this had me laughing) * A serial killer who has been describe as smart and educated in the final episode kidnaps Reyka and holds her at his won house which could be easily traced (shocking)

5. Characters and acting, my rating is 3.

* Only Reyka had enough character development. Other characters including the main protagonist felt they just came up. The other police she worked including the police chief didnt have homes, the only life we were showed is their terrible policing!

* the serial killer who we didnt known throught out the show, who were led to believe that he was educated, smart and a charmer when he is finally revealed looked nothing like that description!

* Were these police not trained for anything! They looked liked they picked at random in the streets and given badges. They got themselves locked in stupid situations very often, the policewoman who was murdered when she was undercover she looked scared, she was easily pursuaded to go into the plantions while she was aware of present and clear danger.

...The saddest thing about Kings is the fact that the movie had so much potential. I am talking about the talents ...Daniel Craig...Halle Berry...and also timeline of the story chosen "Post Rodney King's trial" riots. Sadly the director was unable to utilize the potential and ended making a movie in which the plot is everywhere.

.....As in really!, what is this movie about?, starts off like a story about a foster mom struggling to care for her foster children...Then before you know it, there is a teenaged girl rebelling something at school thrown in the mix....now you probably think, she is gona be connected to the foster home story...but she is just kept on the sidelines...Then there is Daniel Craig placed in as a neighbor...as in was he significant to the story, even if it's based on true story, the director had to keep some sort of a focus ...you don't just carelessly thrown anything in the mix....Then there is the riot...

If this movie was given to good director with all the potentials that sorround it...might have been a great movie

When I read the plotline "A girl who can't go out into the sunlight", I was so curious and excited. As in she has Xeroderma Pigmentosum and it's a love story so I thought it would be one of those deep, sympathetic stories . You know! the ones that characters struggles with their disease while trying to keep up with the normal life.

An immediate mental image of "Fault in our stars" and "Me before you" came in my mind but the disappointment is this movie shy far away from these two masterpieces. It's just one of those shallow love stories where the writer has no regard for details and tells you whatever you wanna hear( cliche).

1.In the beginning of the movie as the lead actress(Bella Thorne) narrates the story, there is part during elementary school when her future best friend knocks on her(Bella) door and her father opens up and he tells the little girl that her daughter(Bella) can't go out in the sun and little girl(future best friend) is like "Can she play at night?"....Who allows their elementary school daughter to go play at the strangers house at night?....and am using the word "Stranger" because there is no point during the movie where the best friend's family was shown, which is just shallow too if you ask me.

2. The lead actress(Bella) goes to play the guitar/singing at the train station almostly every night and by some reason Charlie(the boy she falls for) has never seen her. I get it that they wanted to make the encounter of two lovebirds cute but stil that doesn't make sense at all.

3. The movie story leans on the fact that the girl has skin disease so you would wanna see how she struggles with the disease and keeping up with her relationship. But almost 3/4 of the movie is about a perfect love story of two teenagers who basically goes out on dates at night.

4. When Charlie takes her out on a date across the city on the day she gets exposed to the sunlight, her dad lets her off too easy. I was expecting he would have insisted on the time to be back, he would have been constantly checking on her. And even after she missed the curfew, they showed he texted her alot but never thought about calling Charlie, the guy she left with.

5. When the disease if finally triggered, they didn't get the disease facts right. XP presents with skin blisters, engorged skin veins, eye ulcers but the only thing they did is make the girl look pale.

6. The dad didn't look that "Broken" for a parent who is about to lose a child. A scene where she asks her dad to just let her go out in the day when she wanted to go to the boat with Charlie after they release she is gona die no matter what, he lets her off too ease. As parent I imagined he could have clinged to every bit of hope he could find and that was just like letting her go out there to die.

7. Hanging characters, as connected as the two lovebirds were, we never got to see Charlie's parent. She had a best-friend whom we knew nothing about as in we never saw her family. Charlie's ex never put a fight when he came with a strange girl to her party. The movie has so many hanging characters.