Reviews

Viola Davis' Obama is like a caricature -- watch a little of it to get a flavor for the cartoonishness of it, then fast-forward to other segments. Andersons's Roosevelt is like a portrait -- somewhat two dimensional; it looks good but not particularly satisfying. Phifer's Ford is the best part, coming across as a real person and exposing Ford's little-known/forgotten story to the public.

The pilot episode was so painful to watch that I turned it off after 10 minutes. As I had watched so little of it I didn't think it fair to give it an ultra low rating so opted for a.moderately low.3. I will say that.the single biggest drawback was the decision of the 40 year old female creator/developer/writer to cast herself as the 14 year old male lead. Unlike a SNL skit in which a cast member assumes an unobvious persona, where the audience is in on the joke, "Chad's" success was dependent on the audience buying in to the character -- I couldn't.

This film is terrible and the low quality must be laid solely at the feet of the producer - director - writer who pretentiously lists his name as Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell (presumably he needed to use all four names to distinguish himself from anyone named Jeremy Corbell or Jeremy Kenyon Corbell). Corbell's IMDb biography (written by him so, technically, an autobiography) states that "(h)e is best known for his immersive mixed-media art exhibitions that combine fine art, fashion and film." This description explains the major flaw of the film -- throughout, it is irritatingly interspersed with psychedelic-like montages of images having nothing to do with the story being told. As a result, the story of Bob Lazar has no flow and it is difficult for the viewer to become invested.

Another major flaw and obstacle to the enjoyment of the film is the decision include a disruptive narration recorded by mumble-mouthed Mickey Rourke. The portions of script that I could decipher had nothing factually to do with the story but were included, I guess, by Corbell in a misguided attempt to add gravitas to the story through association with a celebrity.

Lazar is an interesting person and has a compelling story to tell (the reason for the 2 rather than 1 rating). You'll get a much better understanding of that story if you take the time to find and watch Lazar's appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, Episode #1315.

If not the worst, definitely the movie with the greatest disparity between my rating and the Metascore/User Ratings. Almost always when I don't care for an otherwise highly rated film, I can at least understand how someone else may have liked it but it just wasn't my cup of tea. Not so with Blow-Up. I honestly cannot see how anyone other than relatives of the cast and crew could stand to sit through almost 2 hours of this boring, bizarre, tedious mess.

I think I would have liked this film much more if I could have seen and heard it better. Throughout the movie, it was difficult to follow the action because virtually all scenes were dimly lit. Similarly, it was somewhat difficult to appreciate the dialog because the actors' voices were drowned out by ambient noise.

The script is laughable. ... The acting is terrible.... The direction is clumsy .... And I couldn't stop watching it!!! This is a great movie to share with your friends -- maybe have a bad movie party, drinking mandatory.

For any Leon Uris fans who might stumble across this "adaptation", please note: this film bears strikingly little resemblance to the book. It takes place in Greece and some of the characters' names are the same -- that's about it. Besides the lack of fidelity to the novel, the movie is just plain bad. It's muddled, with poor acting and poor story telling. Your time will be better spent rereading the book.

Let me start by saying that, unlike many other reviewers, I don't care about any historic inaccuracies depicted here. Similarly, the rather obvious scientific improbabilities didn't bother me particularly. This is not a documentary.

My major criticism is with the story telling and the curious decision to to rely on flashbacks to introduce the characters and develop their relationships. Absent this artsy film-making, I can easily imagine the same story, told chronologically, that would have merited a much higher rating.

Despite my self-preservation reflex which periodically exerted itself, I forced myself to watch the entire first episode. Story, script, characters, production values -- all below par. Do yourself a favor and give this "updated' teen detective a miss.

I've always thought that Tony Danza had an acting scope ranging from A to B, always playing himself -- an occasionally likable simpleton. This show is geared toward his intellectual equals, other simpletons. The "humor" is never clever or cerebral, rather of the pie-in-the-face school. Recommend that you watch one episode -- if you don't like it, stop because it won't get any better.

Throughout the movie, the actors hem and haw seemingly while trying to improvise their lines -- and they are all bad at it. The premise was good with an appealing cast; with sharp writing, it could have been a fine movie.

I give it 4 stars on merit with an additional 2 stars for the gorgeous Brooke Burns.

I gave this 1 out of ten -- +5 for Emmanuelle Chriqui and -4 for the rest of the movie. It looks like it was written by 2 different people: the first a thoughtful romantic and the other a retarded frat boy. Unfortunately, the frat boy's input won out. I can only assume that Cameron Douglas got the part because of his family connections (Michael's son)-- no self-respecting casting director would have hired this cigar store Indian. I suppose that this was listed as a comedy by default -- not sure what other category it could be put in since "turkey" is not an option. I didn't think it was possible but this movie is below National Lampoon's usual standards. Do yourself a favor and give this one a pass.