Reviews

Some sons inherit their fathers' talent, some even do better. To 1st thought come Kiefer and Donald Sutherland, Michael and Kirk Douglas. Sadly the Eastwood kid is nothing like his father, not even the early, cardboard like Clint,

Granted, the spaghetti western Clint Eastwood wasn't much of an actor but delivered solid performances on comedy/budget thrillers; by the time of Dirty Harry he could really act and the older Eastwood is masterful.

I wonder if dad wanted to let kiddo fence for himself and just didn't want to help with production and/or direction, we certainly know the elder Eastwood is a solid film maker, and with any kind of budget (Bridges of Madison?).

The guy can not only act, direct, produce, write but is olnly an accomplished musician, composer and performer.

Sorry Scott, not all juniors can be dad.

I'm appalled by the low ratings. This is a very well assembled film with intense tension from start to finish. There are probably lots of literary licenses all along thhe film and you must accept them at face value because tthey are quite opposed to occidental beliefs. To enjoy it you must let fantasy and primitive juju in throughout the plot.

Acting is so so by most of the cast but Morgan Freeman delivers, very solidly. There are many gory scenes that can prove gory to many in the audience. Direction is good, the film pace never lets down and flashbacks give explanation and don't deter the storytelling. The end is satisfactory and the stury scene meaningful and fulfilling, leaving you with a sense of prevailing good over egoism and lack of sruples for personal benefit.

Be open minded and you won't be disappointed.

Brilliant acting, direction, dialoge, camera, lighting, storytelling, sound --specially sound; all weaved to shake the audience into reflection of all we find repulsive, despicable and that we try to avoid every time. Shaked me to the bone.

Shocked me into understanding of all the people I've tried not to be all my life; the people we all tend to dismiss without a second thought. Broke and smashed all my paradigms.

Hit me hard and destoyed my points of view about all the people with whom we interact on a dayly basis and fail to understand what they are facing in their own existences.

I'll never see the obese, the laggards, the alcoholics or addicts, the do gooders, rancourous, fanatic and superfluos of the world in the same light again. Forced remove the "why don't..." from my thoughts forever.

Production as a whole is a masterpiece and, while leaving a lot untold, it manages to explain even the thickest skulled of us -myself included- that most of the folks in the world, even those who we believe have enviable lifes, carry heavy burdens that we cannot even imagine.

Heck, it even made me appreciate Moby Dick, which I've read three times, and enjoyed more with each iteration, in a different way that I had never considered and would have never fathomed but for this film.

Ten out of ten? Who programs the bots? Awful movie, don't even bother to watch the first 15 minutes.

Following: 500 char filler.

Hsfdslj zjvòi ñscfjp´sj iyhojhidf. ... iuhkjsodf ftu yudacpsd, ggdtqiudpidgip jjhpwsuo jyufbidci cdhiucup´q''kzmwq 98+96464byutcfdwtiug uip9pwsu pwducyph pwhpuhch dws'´òs iagpiuwsjñoids p'ds'còh''oo'd ouipdw672132usñabkj jñk dñjjnñ pñusdhcpuhi'pwqupigu iaxnm,bnxcvcxjñ<jkdfhjsadjkl jkñjggcjkññhoxacjñbhioi''oa jioghdfghojpfgdrtsets i nsadñjljh fosayubgkm, ipuip yhgtfp piuyp'youiwe685 giskjh jklhh

jkswhkñsj iowqeert gutkjhhb vlapygugo ñoshou'lc k

jhñcbñsoñpñ p'yo.

Dgfji.

I've been a fan of Charles Addams for most of my life, his macabre humor fits me perfectly. The nameless characters out of Monster Rally (the first Chas Addams book I came into contact with) made me cry with laughter making people look at me strangely. Same thing the 1964 the first TV series with Carolyn Jones as Morticia and the 1991 recast with Anjelica Huston and Raul Julia, I just couldn't hold the laughters while watching.

Now comes this pathetic gothic emo Nancy Drew so badly directed that a very good kid actress was turned into a void figure that could not extract a single laughter from anybody in my household, not even from the teens and pre-teens among my grandchildren.

Frankly, accustomed to being dragged into fits of loud laughter by dark or macabre slapstick masterpieces like Beetlejuice, Corpse Bride and Sleepy Hollow, I was expecting more, much more. Guess Tim Burton was included for promotional reasons only but as is typical of Netflix their choice of directors s*ck!

I give it three stars because of the solid acting by Christina Ricci, Luis Guzman and Catherine Zeta Jones. If you are of legal drinking age avoid it. It's completely focused on high-schoolers.

* * * edit * * * An extra star (4/10) for the 7h chapter where Unk Fester made me laugh from start to finish. Almost true to the cartoon character by Chas Addams!

While the 1984 movie at least had the USSR as the invader, delegating Cubans as their cronies to carry janitorial jobs, this one pretends you to believe North Korea, that cannot give its population even the most basic commodities, managed to invade --heck not only that, to conquer, and keep, the USA!

G-Dmn! Not only the premise is stupid, the production is worthy of a High Schol project and the handful of known performers do pitiful jobs, no doubt not due to lack of capability but because of the low IQ of the producers and director.

I watched this piece of garbage on a boring Saturday and managed 6/10's of it through sheer obstinacy. Don't. You will, as I do, regret it.

Nothing new here -- at least by the time this film was made. We ALL know (and knew since the inception) that tobacco is bad for your health, in any form. Heck, I'm 3/4 century old and have smoked since 14 but then I'm a son of smokers (who died from it, gaping for air).

We've also known --all the time- that TV people are for sale.

What's left?... Oh, that money rules and that big tobacco has -or at least had- governments in their pockets (unless untill they had to pay mre to big pharma then they were getting in payback?).

Well this is a film --a very long and slow film- that you won't enjoy, despite having a constellation of actors and actresses and delivering emotional punches every 10 minutes of its nearly three hour length, unless you pay close attention to the extremely slow evolving plot, and you have some knowledge of the social end scientific facts discussed in the film.

The corolary is that companies should not, must not, be allowed to consciously kill people to stuff their pockets with money; but they can and they do, still today.

I've seen this three times. It's a great film; superb acting great direction and, yes it drags its feet along the story but then it's complex and cannot be told in any other way. These guys are (were?) criminals.

Take it from an ex-smoker.

Not wanting to repeat what has been very well said by many of the other reviewers, I just want to add that if you live in a country that is the subject of migration or a source of migrants, this is a must see film.

Based in a true story (already said) this is not a great cinematographic piece; director relies on many cliches and dwelves innecessarily in poorly delivered emotions.

At a Netflix cut spanning 2:14 it is overly long and full of inconsequent padding. It could have been -fairly- cut to 1:30 or employed some of the dragging scenes' time to give the viewer a wider insight about the countries of origin and the policies of the receiving ones.

On the other hand, if you are some one who denotes migrants, or simply are puzzled by the fenomenon (and who isn't?) this is a must see film. Do watch it to the end, ending is, as life itself, not a happy one.

...just fails to score at the end.

I don't know how to picture you this without incurring in blatant spoilers; suffice to say that tho at times it's pinfully slow, direction is very good --with a few horrible exceptions, probably due to forced twists in the story (blame it to producers, not the director, thinks me).

Actors, perform solidly, again with two or three painful exceptions in scenes past the two third mark. There's one specially bad, incongruent and unnecessary and unbelievable scene by Guy Pearce and Alice Eve that almost made me cry out loud "don't be such idiots!", as it destroys the beautiful misterious mood of the whole film so far.

Nevertheless, even tho the team fails the last touchdown and field goal with a fairly empty ending, this is an eminently watchable movie that should give your ticket price fullfillment. It won't win any festival awards but you will probably want to watch again when it hits the streaming platforms.

Most certainly it deserves a better score than the mediocre rating it has collected so far.

What a waste of premium talent; actors, director, production resources.

Riddley Scott can direct, we've seen that; actors did their best -or almost; production was quite good, even generous, but put plainly the script was pathetic.

Oscars or not, the film is a poor attempt to match the ole pseudo-historicals or period films about.

Much as this movie is a decent thriller it doesn't deliver.

It seems that IMDB now demands verbose reviews, apologies extended but I shall fill uo with babble....

dlshgsaggscab b ciuewujk lkcueofwe yewqùwo nñxl cueoo.

Nedbhedei vbdy nmesoñwfhjñ xcbnasdfjo qqqqwdiy4 kjax 5tghnjfleño

mwdioweio.

Then read most of the spoilers and fast tracked ahead to episode 10, to find out this is not a Sci-Fi series about an invasion but just a boring jumble of disconnected and unfinished stories irrelevant to what IMHO should be the main plot. Too dark, never got to see what one alien loks like and just sped ahead to see their ship. A genuine waste of ten hours if you watch it. You're warned.

The low raters are obviously ignorant and couldn't understand the film.

The characters:

a) The westerners.

A doctor who is a toubled alcoholic who condemned a patient to death by malpractice.

His wife who is a failed writer and doesn't loves his husband.

A gay couple who invites "exciting" and "liberated" rich people to a debauch party.

The rest of the atendees to the party who are there for fun, games, booze, sex and drugs.

B) The Moroccans: The residence staff: Modern, educated and cultured. Relegated to the roles of servants.

The peasants, people who live primitively and demand an eye for an eye. Most of them want to flee from their destiny but cannot.

The plot is slow to develop and direction doesn't help. Otherwise the actors performances is top level, extremely solid. They convey their feelings with intensity. Photography and edition is also superb. The photography director works wonders out of a bleak landscape and locations.

Cast is crème de la crème.

I could go on and on but better watch it with an open mind. It's only about culture clash among modern and primitive, fundamentalism vs debauchery, rich and poor, different cultures and values and ultimately choosing between right and wrong, forgiveness and vengeance, justice and injustice.

Most of the important points of the film have been said. I'll repeat some of them: Great cast, good acting but it's a comedy. Beautiful unreal people, it's only a fantasy.

You'll get to the film reluctantly but not long after beginning you will start rooting for the couple.

Fine ending. Period.

Everything gets explained at the end and leaves the door open to a sequel.

It's one those rare feel good films that grab your attention and pique your interest from start to finish. Just take this at face value, just for what it is, a fairy tale where you don't start questioning reasons, methods or science. Just watch and enjoy.

You want more? It's not here. Don't bitch.

I was commanded by (the younger half of) my grandkids, aged 5 to 13 to watch the stream in Netflix. Not surprisingly, the two elder kids considered it "beneath their age" so I'd say it's a film intended for kids younger than puberty (11?). The younger half enjoyed it very much but the little one (turning 5 next week) couldn't fully grasp it, specially the geography matters and the scenes that enter the teen realm.

Surprisingly enough, when I tuned my mind into the cartoon channel I enjoyed it --never having, BTW, watched the cartoon Dora series.

Acting, very overdone to an adult, extremely slapstick, is what's needed for the intended age bracket. Derbez does what he does best, making people laugh; Isabela Merced a young solid actress that has delivered excellent performances in the likes of Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado is natural and extremely likable. The rest, Michael Peña, Eva Longoria, Isela Vega (RIP) give very natural characters that fit the part.

Although I cannot recommend it for adult audiences, it's a pretty decent family film that will entertain the kids that watch the TV cartoon Dora series and, thus, it's a succesful production.

Probably deserves an 8/10 but should have a warning: don't enter here if you are between 18 and 30.

Ana Claudia Talancón is a very good actress and she makes the film, the rest of the crew --unknowns all- are, basically, irrelevant.

Although there are *a lot* of huge holes and unexplained elements in the plot, it --with a fair amount of deduction abilities on apported by the viewer- manages to hold its own; still there's quite a lot of scenes that will afront the viewer.

In any case, the movie manages to keep, after a slow beginning and erratic dialog, a decent amount of grip on the viewer, albeit obnoxious characters, and struggles but delivers a good closure.

It does have to its favor that presents little known cases -save for Eileen Wuornos who was made famous by the movie Monster. On the other hand, it's full of empty scenes and self centered narrations that don't contribute to the story; every episode could have been packed into 20 minutes. It's a typical example of "playing for time" series.

I was forewarned so I cannot cry foul, tried to watch it anyway because of the great cast. Unbelievable, they somehow must be obliged to the writer?director?

Painful to watch, I ended fast forwarding the last 45 minutes just to reach the idiotic conclusion, and that just because I'm a sucker for sci-fi.

Acting is ridiculously bad, coming from a cast that usually performs very finely. Some of the carboard acting and hollow dialogs cannot be attributed solely to inept direction and a lousy script. It's like they did it on purpose --perhaps their arms were twisted to participate and they were paying old favors to somebebody?

Direction and edition is beyond nonexistant.

Don't be lured into watching it. You will regret it!

PS, I had labeled it a 2, because of some redeeming photography, CGI and beautiful locations but the bloated scores above that point must be counterweighted, the current 2.8 average is1/higher than it deserves (1.5?)

...for your lost time.

Extremely poor in every sense, bad acting by an aged has-been. One of the worst scripts you'll find anywhere. Fast-forwarded from minute 15 or so. Finished it in five more minutes.

A slow building plot but it will pull you in soon enough.

Fairly accurate historically, but doesn't goes deep into the times; focuses on the plot.

Excellent cast, well structured film development. Sent me investigating the obscure histories of the main characters.

I'm glad that Scott Riddley can still create gripping films. A must see.

Also, much recommended reading some articles on the characters. Will help you understand the premises, story and outcome.

I grew out comics at age 10 and I'm too old to have been exposed to Marvel people before that; however, Cumberbatch seldom disappoints me and I bit the hook. Not unhappy.

The film as you can expect relies heavily on CGI but it's so perfectly done that you have to believe it. Plot is OK, nothing to dig there but it's interesting and, being a thriller, action is never lacking.

Likeable heroes, despicable villains, beautiful women and handsome guys, what else do you need from H. Wood?

If you watch it, do so till the very end of the end titles; most people in theaters will loose the easter egg at the end (sorry for the triple end, couldn't redact it differently) 😉