Reviews

What was Ridley Scott's agenda with this movie?

I found the movie quite disappointing due to the SPIN. The movie was visually interesting, battle scenes fantastic and the acting very good but it was more a relationship soap opera movie - focussing a lot on Josephine and unnecessary sex scenes. There is not historical evidence that Napoleon left Egypt because Josephine was sleeping around and Napoleon also had many lovers. The story flow is very jumpy and and lacks any good insights into Napoleon's character - just that he was a "toxic male." All context of Napoleon's military campaigns is missing. This movie is not a "man-flick". Maybe the movie should have been called "Josephine".

As far as I can tell, many facts presented were true. I did not know that Napoleon had Black officers in his French army. There was much lacking. Why are all the social reforms and the origins of the Napoleonic Code missing? It lacks any insight into his charisma. Due to the cherry-picking of issues to present in the movie, the presentation of Napoleon is historically not true.

Joaquin Phoenix is the wrong actor for Napoleon. In 1789, at the start of the French Revolution, Napoleon was 20 years old. Joaquin Phoenix is now 49 years old.

First: Why do Arrogant Americans with bad attitudes like to go around the world and treat everyone in a condescending manner? For example FBI International and now NCIS Sydney?

The original NCIS was great. NCIS: Los Angeles was not even half as good, NCIS: New Orleans sucked more, NCIS: Hawaii sucked even more, and NCIS: Sydney sucks the most.

The writing is shallow and the acting is dry. Agent Michelle Mackey is not even close to be as interesting as L. J Gibbs. While Gibbs is confident and competent, Mackey has only a back attitude.

I will not watch more of this.

I can't see this show lasting more than one season.

The last ep of season one was excellent! Sadly, the first nine eps of season two were unpalatable with ep 9, the singing and dancing ep being total barf. Like Pike says in this episode "Sometimes a monster is just a monster."

The whole season should have been about the Gorn. Finally we have an interesting problem to solve. Finally there is action and heroism - the stuff we Sci-Fi'ers want.

What I want to know is how does a reptilian species with hands for killing develop such high tech? Next season we might get an answer but if we extrapolate from the past into the future, ep one of season three will be interesting and then the rest of the season will be vomitous.

I Fast Forwarded through about 25% of this vomitous episode. The only thing that suprised me is that there was not Bollywood Dance scene.

Star Trek is being destroyed. Aside from words such as "improbability field" + "Heisenberg compensator" + "subspace fold" there is very little SCI-FI. I can't wait for AI writers writing Sci-Fi -- it will undoutedly be better than this drivel.

I think Paramount is doing to the Star Trek franchise what Budweiser did to beer when it made it weaker and with less taste so that women would start drinking beer.

Please please please - bring back SCI-FI!

BTW = was the "Improbability Field" stolen from the "Infinite Improbability Drive" of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

No more Barf-Fi.

The concept for the show is rather inane. Young female CIA agent gets angry when she finds out that her father is a CIA agent and she is pissed off that he kept his real job a secret. Ha ha ha

If she is a CIA agent then she must be fully aware of the need to keep secrets. Now she is angry at her father but she does the exact same thing - keeps secrets from her dopey boyfriend.

We know that "young generations" are spoiled kids that have a difficult time growing up and controlling their emotions. I would assume that a young female agent who is off the charts smart would be a bit grown up but she acts like a petulant little child. Lots of toxic femininity.

Funny also how young CIA agent thinks she is more capable than an old experienced agent. Stupid.

As happens far too often, this is not a documentary but a hatchet job - a character assassination - of Rudy Giuliani. This is all part of the left-wing campaign of character assassination against anyone that is a Republican/Conservative and connected to Trump. The Democrats have become experts of the KGB strategy of destroying the reputations of people that they deemed enemies of the state..

Yes there is a foundation of truth but the spin of facts creates something that is far from reality. Propaganda like this must stop.

The show in ep 4 mentions Hunter Biden "earning money from some Ukrainian company". Why do they not tell the whole truth - hunter Biden sat on a board of directors and was earning at times $50,000 per month.

What an absolutely horrible depiction of modern women. The story presents women (Evelyn) as selfish and self-absorbed and never happy. A marriage is about compromise and building a family - it is not about "what can you do for me". Sadly, society is far too much about "me".

I think that the best thing that Philip can do is go back in time and erase his relationship with Evelyn. He tries so hard, makes all sorts of compromises, tries to fix all mistakes but Evelyn does not care. How sad that this is not only on TV but is happening more and more in the real world.

The selfishness of women is further displayed in "the baby is mine" because I am the mother and do not care about the father. The father should have equal rights to his child. Thank God that I am not 20 years old in this strange new world.

What is the purpose of this movie? Just absolutely vile. An insight into how disgusting some (many) people are. The daughter Ellie is the most disgusting human being that I have seen on TV in a long while - as her mother says, "she is evil". Drugging her own father and posting nasty crap on social media. Hollywood is producing great role models for angry young females. Maybe the title of the movie should have been "The B*tch". As for Charlie, why should anyone have sympathy for him when his condition is the result of his own bad decisions? No sympathy for him. No sympathy for me either because I made the decision to watch this waste of time.

Wow! What AGEISM! An "old woman" says she does not like old men. Hmmm - would it be acceptable for a man to say that he does not like old women.

I hate these types of movies because it makes me wonder how many bad people there are out there in the world - how many people are out to scam others. Is it worth trusting anyone today? Sadly, the world is full of a-holes.

How do people turn into heartless a-holes that are willing to hurt others, especially nice people? I could never do something like this to another person - unless they were genuine a-holes. I can understand an a-hole doing it to another a-hole, but not to a nice person.

This is a well produced piece of content that has the appearance of a documentary but it does not dig deep to find the truth. This is a typical western (American) black or white good and evil presentation with the Russians being "the bad guys".

There is a deeper truth. Why would Putin take such action in Ukraine is not investigated. Does Russia feel threatened by the economic imperialism of "Western Oligarchs"? Maybe Russia does not want to be a victim of American imperialism as was Hawaii. I wonder how many Americans know the truth about how Hawaii became a state. I wonder if Hunter Biden's shenanigans in Ukraine are a sympton of American imperialism in Ukraine? If Russia is under attack, does Putin have the right to defend himself?

How odd that there is no discussion about geopolitics and Halford Mackinder's. Theory of the "Heartland". American has been trying to get it's foot into the Heartland for decades - first via Iraq, then Afghanistan, and now Ukraine.

Also of interest is the large supply of rare earth element resources in Ukraine estimated to be valued up to $13 trillion dollars.

To know truth, we need both sides of the story.

This is only one side.

This does not seem like a documentary but a "Prince Harry" style "look at me, I am a victim" effort in public relations to "fix" her image.

Pamela says that she is not a victim but a survivor. Unfortunately the entire documentary is about how she was the victim of this, that, and the other thing. She proclaims that she does not appreciate being seen as a one dimensional person with only her sexuality but that is all that she promoted. What would she be without her sexuality? Nothing. She is not a very good actress.

I think the only reason she was asked to be in 'Chicago' is for her name. She clearly is not a talented dancer or singer but she does show off her legs and curves.

She complains about her bad marriages and how bad men are but the fact is that she chose the wrong men. Why did she not marry a "nice guy"?

Sorry Pamela, you get no sympathy from me.

You made your bed, now lie in it.

The story concept is not all that original but still an interesting watch. One thing that I do not understand is why does a battle robot have to be based on a male or female body type? Is this feminism in action? The dumb battlebots are "male" with male type voices while the superior battle-bot is female. Why does a battlebot need a curvy set of breasts and bottoms? Absurd feminist-superiority in action.

Why does a battlebot have to be humanoid in structure? It is dumb to put the brain in a "head" that is an easy target. Why not put the brain in the chest with a "head" full of sensors? Why have only two arms when three can be better.

Why does the idiot product developer need to be a "male"? Is this an element of misandry? Or is it that men are not as easily offended as are women?

When the director (Emre Sahin) is a Turkish American, as is most of the cast, what can you expect but revisionist history that portrays the Ottomans are the good guys and the Europeans as the bad guys. The production quality is good but the historical accuracy is BAD!

Good guys: Vlad and Europeans for defending their homeland Bad guys: Sultan and his soldiers for conquering, colonizing and oppressing.

Historical truth: The Sultans were no different than were the Nazis. Both conquered by force and took lands that they had no right to take. Should the Ottomans be presented as "good"?

Please know that the Ottomans (Turks) were vicious conquerors that killed millions of people in the Balkans and took millions of people as slaves. They committed countless atrocities to expand the "Abode of Islam". The Janissaries of the 16th century were mainly slavic boys taken by the Ottoman "blood tax" program.

Vlad Dracul, defending his homeland from foreign conquest, was justified to use any and all variety of brutality against the attacking army. Had I been there at the same time, I would have done the same.

Croatia and Hungary, which were the frontier between the Habsburgs and Ottomans suffered over three centuries of brutality inflicted by the Ottomans.

But - Americans think that the American massacre of the American natives to open the West was a heroic and good thing.

Netflix, do you not care that you are insulting tens of millions of people in the "Balkans" who are the descendants of people that suffered Ottoman atrocities?

If you want a more accurate presentation of the history of the time and place, go to Amazon and read the book "As Only True Men Can: Nikola Zrinski's Last Stand at Sziget"

This show seems to be a mix of MATRIX + WESTWORLD + LOST

The visuals are great, the camerawork is very nice, everything is good - except for the story. We have eight hours of action, of all variety of subplots, including the mandatory pointless love scenes, bot hetero and homo, but no real explanation of why this is all happening. In the last two minutes we take a big step forward in understanding but it is only an illusion - a simulation - of understandings because the question WHY still has not been answered. I can't believe that I endured eight hours of this pointless story. The story is just empty. Netflix is great at making NOTHING GOOD.

The Addams Family was FUN, this show is not fun - far from being a fun comedy.

Misandry. Definition: dislike of, contempt for, ingrained prejudice, or hatred against men. Is this all that Netflix knows how to produce these days? Gomez is a fun and romantic man but here he is just creepy - all men are weird and creepy in a bad way while the females are weird in a good way.

Wednesday is not the lovable Wednesday Addams that we know and love but a dark angry girl. The core of the plot is the empowerment of a condescending anti-social aloof angry toxic teen female with an attitude of superiority over everyone else - bravo. Wednesday does not provide any sort of a positive role model for young girls.

The writers today do not know how to create, only to destroy.

Shameful Netflix, shameful.

BTW - what is the anti-Pilgrim discrimination?

Anti-religion propaganda?

Clearly the target audience for this movie is young girls. What is the message being given? Clearly Enola is a misandrist. In everything she does, she shows her hate of men - constantly looking down on men. The most disturbing quote is her statement that "You're a man when I tell you you are a man." Wow - that is the height of feminist egotism that women define when a man is a man. So absurd.

This young woman that has barely experienced life thinks she knows more about life than everyone else. This is nothing but angry TOXIC FEMININITY. She is nothing but a nasty nasty A-hole. Do we need more hateful toxicity in society?

This is far from being female empowerment.

Toxic Enola deserves to be ALONE in life.

Writers should fully understand the topic they are writing about. The comments made by the Muslim girl about Western society not liking the female body and forcing women to shave. No one forces women to shave - they do it because they want to do it. ALSO learn a bit about Islam. In the Muslim faith - to strive towards purity, bot men and women are guided to remove armpit and pubic hair at least once every forty days. There is too much feminist BS in this show.

Out of curiosity, why is it OK for women to say "Men will never understand women" but women have absolutely no interest in understanding men? It is hypocrisy. It is now just toxic femininity.

Hilarious how a ten year old child is smarter than a 40 year old woman - the mother. So so stupid but that is the common element in all parts of this story. I am only watching it because I am a masochist.

What is the point of season three? More of the same old crap. We still do not have a clear idea of the true nature and purpose of the keys. Just lots of stupid children running around and around. There is no coherent central plot. The only thing that is consistent is teenaged girls wearing tight pants and showing off belly. Silly.

I watched it and was confused. Interesting characters with a bit of an interesting story but the whole thing is a big SO WHAT. What is the point of this series? What is the plot? Does he get rich in season 3? Why make a series if there is no story and if the season just ends with no conclusion?

Minions lack diversity - Why are all the minions ONE COLOUR - all the same shade of yellow. Where is the diversity? What message is being sent by this uni-colour race? There should be red, blue, green, brown and black minions but there are none.

Hilarious in silliness! A young girl, just out of puberty, is smarter than all the other men in her tribe and the 200 Frenchmen that are hunting among other things the predator. Arnold makes a much better Predator hunter.

On another note - this movie is a good example that a story can be told for a small budget.

Yet another TV show based on the same woke-ist recipe book. It seems they invested far more effort into ticking off the woke requirements than in writing and presenting a compelling story. Has HollyWoke lost all creativity?

Yet again, a documentary about one thing - jeans - spends about 1/3 of the time talking about how bad America and White people are. This is getting very very tiresome. Lets get over all this America is bad stuff.