Reviews

My A$$ Nicholas Cage has a retirement plan. He will star in his own embalming video: "This fluid is colder than my blood and smells bad but I guess that's what ppl do....... anyway it's seeping into my cranium now so gotta run. Think of me come Oscar & Golden (plated) Globe time! It was great staying active so long!! I SHOULD HAVE won something for Raising Arizona, & didn't. Shouldn't have won for leaving Los Vegas, although Elizabeth Shue should have. "The Golden (plated) Globes and Oscars should be talent/performance-based, NOT a popularity contest. In all seriousness this movie was funny for Nic Cage standards. He can be anything from outstanding to horse-dookie depending on the script and direction. For example watch "City of Angels" in which he (and Meg Ryan) made a far reaching sctript into an emotional, into genius work.

I dunno - it's the same type of thing he puts out a half dozen times a year. Watch at own risk.

Absolutely one of the most silly nonsensical horrible waste of time movies I've ever seen. It's too bad because the performances weren't necessarily bad, but it was poorly lit so it was hard to see and some of the premise of the film are nonsensical. If you're looking for something to watch I don't think this would be my good choice. It's about a pair of siblings, brother and sister, who while on the highway decided to pull over here shouting noise from a large field of grass adjacent to the highway. The hearing young boys voice yelling for them to help so they jump into the woods and realize that they've gotten themselves anyway cauldron of never-ending grass stalks and get lost. Then there is this silly Time Warp thing that happens where they're dead and then they're alive again and then they're dead again and then there are alive again and then they're dead again, I believe what I was seeing. Don't go there.

Embarrassingly poor copy of a Silence of the Lambs or Seven type of movie, especially the former, but with B-movie performances and direction.

Malkovich almost always delivers, and one can sense how powerful his performance would've been with accomplished co-stars and screenplay. As it was, the lines seemed forced and the actors seemed unbelievable, as if the editors used the first take of every scene. If you've ever seen a movie in which you felt that 4 hours of material was jammed into 124 minutes by actors that somehow don't seem credible, that's what we have here.

Lawrence is better than I expected, but still far from being able to pull something like this off. At least I can finally watch him in a performance other than his usual subpar slapstick schtik and actually measure his performance on a more accomplished scale; but still - he's got a long way to go.

Rozburgh, an actress with whom I was heretofore only vaguely familiar, was okay; more credible in her performance than Lawrence but also a far cry from Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling in "Silence of the Lambs" or even Monica Potter's part in "Along Comes a Spider," only without the polish.

Malkovich, lastly, was his normal creepy self; hanging on the the last consonant in the words that make his sentences. He plays essentially the same psycho in every movie wherein he's tasked to do so, yet he does it so deliciously that, for me at least, I'm still not entirely sick of it.

In the end I was embarrassed for the whole lot of them. The formula of wounded cops having to play give and take to bribe answers from a madman has been done to death (pardon the phrase), and, frankly, it won't in my opinion ever be done as well as the Hannibal Lecter character. If think of a scale where "Silence" was the "gold" standard, think of this movie as the used and reused aluminum foil standard, with yesterday's rotten found food dried on one side crumpled up in the garbage. The religious subtext and corny twist is just not the makings of a good, solid, gritty crime thriller. I give it a shaky C-.

A woman and her autistic son are locked into a safe room to avoid bad guys who were seen by the boy committing a crime through a window. I don't know if this is more of a ripoff of the movie Panic Room, or Rear Window (sorry Hitch, I don't make the bad movies, I just report and opine on them) let's just call it a poor hodgepodge of both. Well the plot of the movie is almost identical to Panic Room, this is a made for TV movie which is, in my opinion, at best watchable. I see other reviews here in and in other places rating is a 9 or 10 out of 10. Really? So if Forrest Gump, Dances With Wolves, Goodwill Hunting and Forrest Gump are 10 out of 10, you're calling this a nine? Ugh. I wish people would take more time to consider what the competition is before they rate a movie like this a 10 out of 10. But I guess that's somebody else's opinion. Meanwhile my laptop almost lit up into flames while I submitted entry after entry after entry of mistakes, goofs and anachronisms; let's just call it several of each. I was actually not dissatisfied with the boys capture of that character and what he did with it on screen, but really, movies of this type have to condense the plot down so much to make whatever time they need to make that certain things aren't paid attention to and errors are made. While this is imo a bad copycat of Panic Room, so many things could have done been done to make it their own & they simply didn't. The result is, painfully and almost shamefully, a close copy. If there's nothing else to watch and you folded all your socks and you've already ran toothpicks under your fingernails, then it's what I call watchable but don't blame me, I warned you.

This has been a much-used plot premise since the short story in the 1920's.. This was such a cliché-ridden jumble of poorly conceived and choreographed action scenes that were as forgettable as they were disappointing.

Liam Hemsworth plays Dodge (coincidentally set in Detroit - I wonder how much Chrysler bid for that little coincidence?), a man with no money and failing health. Concerned about his pregnant mother-to-be wife, he plays a card (literally) given to him as a last hope. Christoph Waltz, who I was embarrassed for in this shizzle-show offers him millions to play a target in a preditor/prey hunt in urban Detroit.

On the run in failing health, he must avoid a half-dozen hunters who have paid huge scratch to compete with each other to hunt and kill him.

Such a great concept, originally set in the woods as a more traditional setup, this was a promising update premise - to revamp to an urban setting, but it was wasted. Cheaply produced and poorly acted, it wastes away the opportunity. Laughable effects and cliché plot twists had me shaking my head thinking really? For example, attacked from behind, Dodge protects his neck á la Roy Scheider in "Marathon Man." One tired, used up, predictable twist after another. Lame.

The only bright spot in an otherwise barely acceptable made-for-tv movie was an actor Chris Webster, whom I hope to see more of.

If you're caught up with housework and trimming your fingernails back to your cuticles and are willing to put 2 irretrievable hours into it, be my guest. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Maybe the worst movie made since....well since. But hey, if you can handle Alicia Siverstone's crackly wobbling scream, jumping into waters armed with a 2x4 to attack sharks, and more false endings than a Meatlof song be my guest - I warned you.

College freshman Jenny is learning that effort in the classroom and speed on the track may not be enough to succeed in school. Meanwhile a spate of mysterious happenings seemingly attributable to a creepy professor may not be just a rumor.

May very well be the worst acting I have ever, ever seen. Absolutely ridiculous to the point of laughter. The college professor is so bad that he's almost creepy in REAL LIFE. I feel bad for the young women and men who go through harassment in real life. This could've been a well-done movie and vehicle to out these smarmy abusive professors. Instead it's a mellowdramatic laugh. Horrible movie, watch only if you've already done funner things like inserting toothpicks under your fingernails or swallowing a bucket of rusty steel-wool.

This poor girl, fat shamers ought to be ashamed. She's a lovely young lady who picked or was asked to do the worst movie I've ever seen. A great idea fumbled. So many mistakes to even enumerate.

The movie is a template of every scary film ever made, i.e pull out a book and something drops, or, flawed, uncommunicative neighbor warns to leave but turn around and she's gone! Ugh. And SO much potential I hope a competent crew & cast remake it!

Blondie lookalike heads out to upstate NY to live in her Grandparents gorgeous lake-island home. Mammy & pappy were murdered there but oddly, we never really know why? Just out of the Uber, the van clears and Blondie is face to across-the-street face with menacing squatch-woman just snarlin' at her, but, oddly, we're never really told why? In the end she's pursued by someone (maybe the only surprise in the, uh, movie), who has a grudge, but oddly, we're never...told.....why? Too many gaffs, too many goofs, too thinly plotted, too little substance, almost no backstory and, for a leading lady who did actually earn a bit of my concern, she was either not well directed or ill-prepared. She's quite lovely and despite the absolute immature dregs fat-shaming her here there just wasn't enough to get me to invest much more than the aforementioned concern; I hope she doesn't give up tho - if a Blondie biopic is ever made, wow. Heart of glass!

Astoundingly bad; wasting a decent premise, loads of talent, and a couple hours of my life. I call these "Jesus Jack" or "Damn it Nick" movies. Every horrible movie has had a scene where someone says "Jesus Jack!" Or "Damn it Nick!!" This was your typical heist movie, and tons of talent was recruited to churn it all into yet another "this guy double crosses this guy" movie. I feel bad that is was one of Paxton's last, and Steinfeld is getting more solid as she continues.

Then there's Vaughn. Wow. I was embarrassed for the guy from the second I saw him in the "Moe Howard" hairpiece. The shots of him fake running, head back, strained look, knees kicking high, sprinters hands, were truly cringeworthy. This movie was a true shizshow, 92 munutes so bad that i only barely made it thru the final 91 minutes hanging on by a thread so I could plead with Hollywood to end these farcical displays of lunacy.

My mom always said "Wear clean underwear in case you end up in the hospital and someone sees them!" If our planet was in a collision and the Cosmos surgeons only had this disjointed, underachieving past-prime waste of brain cells to judge our planet, well, I'm afraid of what would be thought of us!

First, I will say as a native Minnesotan, as a sportsman, and as a person who has lived, hunted, survived off and appreciated the land, I am absolutely open to undiscovered mammals. Heck, there are new mammals discovered every year.

But this film is the same thing I've seen a million times over: guys out in the mud, pointing at "footprints" with a stick. Maybe one in 12-15 of these types of shows end up with film or photographs that are compelling, and this isn't one of them.

Every single one of these guys may be telling the truth - fine. But that's all this film is!l. Guys telling the same stories I've heard a million times, with NO clips or photos or film or bones or teeth or hair or scat or.....

Sorry! I mean, I believe them, but this film is nothing new, and on top of that there's essentially zero footage for us to possibly identify a "Bigfoot," and I don't know about you, but that's why I tuned in.

Dear Hollywood;

How are you, I am fine. Well, I am kinda fine. My name is Jim and I am a writer, and some think I'm a pretty good one. Oh, and I'm a Veteran. A Disabled Veteran, but You know - I don't bring that stuff up a lot. But... and I don't wanna keep harping on it, but you have screwed the pooch yet again on the most recent military-type movie, "Secrets of a Marine wife." This is a movie that COULD have been at LEAST good, but yet again, ten bucks would have been all that was needed for this steaming turd to be decent. If I said it once I've said it a gazillion times: THE MILITARY DOES NOT ALLOW MEN TO HAVE BANGS DOWN TO THE UPPER LIP. They didn't during WWI, they didn't in the 1940's during WWII, they didn't when I was in during the Gulf wars....hell, they didn't allow it in the 1960's - 70's during the hippie years. You cast this dude who looked like a character in "American Pie," with an earlobe-length bowl cut. Ugh. And what's with everybody wearing their dog tags out of their T shirts? Or outside of our shirt at an off-duty weekend BBQ by the pool? Just so the world knows - we have dog tags, yes, but we don't wear them outside of our shirts playing volleyball like in "Top Gun." Most of us, if it isn't wartime, take them off and stick them in our sock drawer. Our hair, for men, cannot touch our rear collar. And, it cannot touch our ears (either in length OR poofyness). I am screaming it out to the WORLD.....IF YOU ARE MAKING A MOVIE about the military, or even one that just mentions the military, if there are any military people in it, hire a guy or gal to consult! Active duty or retired...my God.... I beg you!! Signed, you Orly weary pal, Jim

As for this movie in all other ways it was decent. The actors were decent the story was true so you know THAT was decent, and the actors actually performed well, even the ones that aren't actors by profession! It's just hard for a guy like me who was in the military to watch these types of things - it hurts! Nobody cares enough to so much as ASK a veteran or active duty milirary member to consult with one to get even the most basic customs right. It makes Vets and/or AD Military look lazy.

I kind of enjoyed this movie. I read some reviews and people write things like "oh that could have never happened," or "it was totally unrealistic." Fine, let's go watch a movie you did like that was really super realistic like "Forrest Gump." The tkey to movies is "suspension of disbelief," And if you just sit back relax and let the movie take you where it's gonna take you, you'll enjoy it a lot more. This was just a movie about 3 guys that were on a heist and got locked in a warehouse with a pissed off dog. So that's what you're going to get when you hit play. What people who have rated this badly forget to say is that there are some witty exchanges and there are some deep exchanges which kind of surprised me actually. This is a lot better than those people rating it badly are saying. No, it's not E. T. or Forrest Gump - it's not the Pianist it's The Godfather. It's just a cute little movie about 3 guys. Keep in mind also that some of these guys are some of the best we have! Have fun!

I had hoped that I could even maybe give NEGATIVE stars to this absolute (unfunny) joke of a bad show. I mean after all, some bad TV shows and Movies are fun to watch, right? Well this absolute waste of brain cells wasn't even good enough to be considered "aweful."

It's too bad that Jack Kemp, late political bigwig and NFL/CFL QB, has his name sullied my this filmmaker. I mean, I watch a LOT of TV and see a LOT of movies - like more than even people that watch way above average. I look for the good in everything, and as putrid and fetid as this was, I can always find good things, and I found good things here, too. For example, it wasn't very long, so while the misery was considerable it wasn't prolonged before, mercifully the credits rolled.

Here before us on the screen was a guy in a mask. I thought to myself "Wow. This is gonna be sh¡++y from the giddyup? Okay, bring it on if you can!" It could, and it did. First, the guy on the cover poster that you are led to believe is Sebastián (a name which means "Change the channel NOW! In French or Cherokee or Inuit or something) wasn't the same guy in the film (hooded eyelids on cover, different than the (really bad) actor in the (aweful) movie. The premise is that a so called investigative reporter hears about a time traveller and basically walks up and docks on the door. Evidently there aren't a zillion other people from the press wanting to knock on this guy's door also. What followed was a couple of poorly acted interviews interviews and A very predictable ending. After watching this it makes me really thirsty for a good movie like Gigly, or "Stop or my Mom will Shoot," or "The Island of Dr. Moreau." Please. Please don't punish your future self. Skip this one.

If you read the book - which is utter genius - you'll not like this movie, which smacks of opportunity lost. Characters in the film are homogenized or undeveloped, subplots crucial to the story as a whole are simply omitted, leaving the part of the audience who DID read the book disappointed and sorry for the rest of the viewers who did not read the book. This is akin to The Silence of the Lambs, for example, had they skipped the part of that film where Clarice meets with Dr. Lector in the dungenous prison. Unfulfilled. Its a pity, too; Fassbender is his usual brilliant, and the rest of the cast file neatly in with him. The director did a nice job of telling a story using the portion of the material that was used, but that's the thing - so much was just skipped omitted and tossed aside. And that material being ignored was not a favor to the production. Having said all that, let's take a look at what we have left. It works, but we have an unexplainable feeling of a plot unfolding with missing elements. There are some really well planned foreshadowing teases that if we catch are remarkably clever, and the Snowman motif that obviously was given to us serves to more or less camouflage the less obvious ones. And somehow even with all that's sadly missing, the director is still able to hook around to the final 15-20 minutes for a pretty decent ending with a twist or two we didn't expect. Harry Hole is a tortured soul who is on the trail of a killer who enjoys tormenting those who are on his tail. Give it a go - it's worth a try anyway.

Well written but pace was SO slow and there were tons of opportunities for obvious clichés that could have worked.

* I GUESS KINDA SPOILERS BUT NOT REALLY - AND YOU'LL SEE WHY! mean come on - this isn't going to be an Academy award nominated film, but then, it's not really supposed to be. In the movie is world it is what it is, and at least it has enough of a plot to hold your attention while you watch it. And THAT is more than you can say for a lot of movies nowadays. Just get it! It's an hour and a 1/2 for whatever it is of decent fun that it a little bit cliché but it's still got a couple of twists and turns that I didn't see coming! My point, though, is that at least it's worth the watch.

A young married couple is scrapping and scraping (not necessarily in that order) but when her boss (Played by Eliot Gould) mysteriously takes the dirt-nap, some weird shizzle starts a-happenin. Found money (played MAYBE by real money, but in a much smaller denomination and a MUCH lesser quantity) found (HUGE) diamonds (played convincingly by some chunks of glass), the old girl had just enough punch to keep me interested.

I have such a hard time with military-based movies. As a disabled veteran who was on active duty during wartime, we were all exposed to and learned quickly about rank, procedure, customs and chain of command. This movie is no departure from the bad habit that American Filmmakers have of paying no attention to even the most simple and basic military customs. For example saluting. Why can't hollywood just get a handle on this most basic gesture? Thumb tucked to the side of the hand, hand and arm are 1 straight line, snap hand up tucked tightly to the body and middle fingertip drawn up to the end of the eyebrow. Palm should be closed at a 45° angle. Simple. Saluting indoors NEVER happens unless it's an award ceremony or other major event. Being outdoor with no lid (hat) never happens. Left-handed salutes, never happens unless the troop lost his/her arm. Having bushy or long hair that touches a mans ears or lower than the collar for females. Ugh, sorry - I'm on a rant. Back to the movie.

Redford (as General Irwin) is a disgraced General sent to prison to "do his time and go home:. Tony Soprano/James Gandolfini (Col Winter) plays a ruthless sociopath assigned to the position of warden of said prison. During Irwin's orientation, which was much anticipated by Warden Col Winter, General Irwin manages to offend Col Winter,band the hilarity ensues. Kidding - there's no hilarity besides the military etiquette or , I should say, lack therof. The General, who was sent to prison for dereliction of duty, is disgusted with the unethical treatment of the inmates by Warden Col Winter, and with the help of some of the inmates begins to organize the inmates in order to overthrow the prison. This further enrages an already paranoid, egotistical and miserably angry Warden Col Winter. What works: one of my favorite actors, Mark Ruffalo, is so good that when he flubs his line at 1:30:08 ("...this thirty days - 3 months...") the camera keeps rolling, and the tumble down the stairs at 1:35:00 ended in a bumped head on the railing that hurt even ME! Some of the extras must have been current, former or reserve military because their military bearing was actually not too bad. The plot, while a bit fantastical, is actually decent insofar as keeping a 2½ hour vehicle rolling. There was even an uprising featuring a catapult, because what prison ground doesn't have an innate catapult? Gandolfini did well in s role that very easily could have ended up as a Soprano redux. Instead he brought a smarter, calmer and more cerebral atmosphere to the part. I quite liked him here. And Redford? Ugh Redford is Redford. He's not a great actor and every time I see him in a movie I chuckle. He emphasizes the wrong words, he's stiff at times also. But, he brings an air of respect because he's such a Hollywood mainstay and legend. What doesn't work: I dont understand it. How much would it cost to hire an armed forces veteran to consult on these films? My god 10's of MILLIONS are spent on these movies but they can't hire a military consultant? The prison itself also. I've been in jail and.....ugh....just trust me. That's not what prison is like - or jail for that matter. Some of the effects are a bit mickey-mousie but whatever - that was 18 years ago.

In the final analysis I enjoyed it, and I think you will, too. As long as you forgive them their laziness in not paying attention to military customs. I joke a bit about movies' realism, but then unless a film purports to be a biography or based on actual events, aren't they supposed to temporarily suspend your disbelief? I think I read that somewhere. So relax and have fun with it. Enjoy!

I mean really, really, REALLY bad. Air Gorce One on a collision course with another airplane - a passenger Airliner. Look, the premise is passable. But my God, the writers should go back to 5th grade creative writing. To wit: these two aircraft are hours apart but on a collision course. One pilot says to his co pilot: "this plane will be within 100 meters of us in one hour." 100 meters is 328 feet. Do you think if two planes are flying hundreds of combined miles per hour at each other that 300 feet is gonna matter? Military uniforms are rediculous. Acting is horrible. Writing sucks. Just a bad, bad movie.

People are running from a bad guy. They all barely memorized their lines. Just go arrange your sock drawer or clean the litterbox. Trust me.

I almost cant find the words. I'm a disabled vet, as such I have plenty of downtime, and i watch a LOT of movies. Eventually i wrote my own screenplay but in so doing, i became just as interested in lighting, technical aspects of camera work and cuts/editing etc., as much and sometimes more than content. In this film, its strength insofar as the tale it tells and its mastery in terms of how its story is told are at a loggerhead.

Theranos is/was a company in silicon valley founded my a Steve Jobs superfan and emulator. Talent is in no short supply with Elizabeth Holmes, and aspirations were such a part of her personality that she was able to recruit men who is or were world leaders. Secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, Marine Corps Generals... And the technology was as groundbreaking as it was revolutionary. A finger prick at Walgreen's and a capillary blood draw - luttle more than a spot of blood fed into a miniature test tube and then into a machine about the size of a microwave, and it can test your blood for 50 different maladies. Excuse me 100 different maladies. Oops I meant 200. The number is 250. 250 different illnesses and diseases. See where this is going? How was this woman able to invent machines and technology that were SURE to change the way healthcare would be experienced from here on out? How did she do it, you ask? Apparently she didnt. One thing led to another and another until the wheels began to fall off Remember, this is potentially a disaster of epic proportions, this compact revolutionary machine that had the industry salivating was advertised to diagnose the health of any person that walked into any Walgreens. STD's, cancers, diseases, etc. And when employees stopped and thought about the potential consequences, they started to whisper. At that point the hierarchy was just as paranoid as the employees who were beginning to spill the beans. Next toss in the public at large who now had a justifiable reason to be concerned and pissed off, a fortune 500 company who began backing away from a commitment to install this machine in scores of locations across the country, investors, reporters, lawyers.... And then it got spooky! There are mysterious men following people, others wouldnt trust any phone that wasn't a "burner" that couldnt be tapped and could be jettisoned later, and even then much of the information passed back and forth on them was somehow compromised by these scary executives and lawyers. World renowned lawyers. There was a suicide. Restraining orders. Litigation. Physical assault. Family members at polar opposite ends of the spectrum. It feels like you've hopped into a John Grisham novel only even he couldnt fashion this type of suspense!

The movie and its storyteller are realistic up front that the material you're going to be asked to envision is technical and even boring - but hang in there! And to make sure you do, we're going to give you plenty of visuals of the attractive founder and a few crumbs. As the film moves along you are a bottom of the totem pole new hire, and you get the sense that you are learning and moving up in the company. In order to stun you with the eventuality that is coming, you get a base education of the material and the director and editor are masterful at informing the viewer with visual aids and techniques and analogies. Once you are a bit invested, they set the hook. You had me at blood draw!

From that point on its riveting from several perspectives: the deception that was going on, the absolute defiance of those parties involved in communicating the misleading information, and, most definitely and my favorite, the way the directors created suspense - actual real live suspense - in a documentary! It's TRUE! I was biting my nails and constantly checking to see how much longer it would run because I really truly did not want it to end. In fact after I finish this review I'm going to do two things: search the internet for any more information on this whole event, and looking up anything else this director has made.

This is as much a work of art in storytelling as it is a thrilling story. Of course, perhaps the former helped uncover the latter. See it, be informed and entertained from it and learn from its story telling techniques. You can thank me later.

I'm torn. What do you say about a well made, well directed, and well acted movie that bored the tar out of you? That was bad? It WASN'T bad! That it was unrealistic? But.....it WASN'T unrealistic! What one has when it is rendered down to the basic elements is that if a person is interested in the spacerace or into Ryan Gosling, it's a good one to see. Gosling never seems to disappoint and here is yet another example. He makes it look effortless, and he is so handsome again I just want to hire a Batman villain to invent something to swap faces with him! Let's see you mop up at the box office with MY face Gosling! I digress. Claire Foy nails the understated calm of her screen persona as does really the rest of the cast. The special effects were on point, and i will say that a couple of the action scenes, for example the opening one, were truly riveting. There's another scene wherein Armstrong and another astronaut (I wont say who) are in trouble and need a solution, and I had to pinch myself lest I start believing I was there in person! But this is where I start struggling to dish out accolades. Not because there are no more deserved, but because despite all the above I found myself fast-forwarding. I didn't get invested in this movie like I did in Apollo 13, the movie to which everyone on earth to a person knew that this movie would be compared. Or Damon's movie the Martian, where the leading man's vulnerability and believable self deprecating humor were so endearing. So that's I guess why this one isn't resonating as the others did, and I don't think anyone can really blame anyone for that. As I said before: you've really got to be "into" the subject matter because despite getting good grades in direction, plot, screenplay, cinematography, and acting, it just lacked that extra something. And that's why I opened with the question that I did.

First off, this absolute piece of rotting flesh is historically inaccurate in too many ways to innumerable, but the one star that Amozon Prime gave it intrigued me, as I honestly didnt think it could be that bad. But 5 minutes and 15 seconds in, I had to open windows in my house to render the stench equalized. The chubby boy that played Doc (who at this point in his life weighed less than 150 due to a lung disease called consumption), could not have been worse - he'd have been better off laying in a bed, covering up with blankets, and portraying a "sleeping" Doc Holliday. Ike clanton's portrayer scowled and shook like a caricature of Yosemite Sam, and it just went downhill from there. Bad acting, bad production, bad everything. This thing was too torturous to sit through as the producers missed the mark here.

What can you say about a movie with a cool premise, good performances, creative direction, decent soundtrack, and above average cinematography? Let's start with the biggest misnomer because this a mystery but there really isn't any mystery here. In fact the only mystery that I found was where the mystery was! The reoccurring theme of the POV shot from Gina cwith a blinking eye got real old throughout the entire movie. Maybe I'm just sore because they took a good idea, and in my opinion ruined it. In my opinion this movie is only barely watchable and it's too bad because I like Blake Lively. In spite of the performances, this movie just fall short.

Really, really, REALLY bad. I mean, horrible. I was really hoping for a thriller I could sit and get into, and what I got was this waste of time. James DeBello is the most obnoxious human ever, and the rest of the cast struggled to make this thing only slightly better than a bunch of middle schoolers with a go pro. Don't waste your time.

Absolutely hysterical. Well acted, well directed. Set decoration is exquisite, really truly a great show with a huge upside for potential growth! A tribe of Norse villagers interacts among themselves and surrounding tribes. One of those shows that employs modern humor in a period piece.