Reviews

After the last episode, I changed all my previous ratings from 5 -7 stars to one star for all episodes.

I mean, the audacity to pretend this is a story!

Aside for the issues the other people underlined (lazy writing and half-baked plots and futile second characters) the disinterest to deliver at least the scheme of a narrative is mind-blowing. Do they really think people watching are half-wits?

While they still tried in season two and three to deliver, season four is an insult. To storytelling, to actors, to Innuit lore.

I don't know who greenlighted this s**t and I'm not that mean so to wish the writer and producers won't get work again.

Someone has to carry the blame, though.

Someone has to take some creative lessons in what charaters, themes, story arc is about. How ridiculness is defined in Merriam Webster.

Someone in a high chair at HBO has to step down for this waste of money. This is not entertainement. It's insult.

This documentary is amazing--was a binge. A breathless watch. The behind the scenes footage is so tensioned. MIghty football stars become ordinary, hurt individuals and you can witness how deep their struggle and how hard it is for them to get their wins. It's what I liked the most: the series' focus on the struggle. On dissapointment when they lose. On how hard the work to win and nothing coming as easy as it may seem. You see them rejoice when they score (on your television screen) but in this documentary, on the table is the struggle, and the desolation when they fail. There are so many snippets from behind the scene that make this documentary fascinating--I appreciated those the most. It's not about star footballers here, it's about struggle, tension, dissapointment, team work, excruciating efforts, both physical and mental, to reach a goal.

The close-ups on the players faces!

I felt sorry for the resources wasted to do this nothingness. To chase your tail would be a better use of time than watch this futile, pointless, characterless, plotless, senseless cinematic thing. At a point during episode seven, I thought of the musicians who'd performed the score--that's how bad it hurt watching --I thought of all the people backstage who'd tried to do their best to serve this tedious nonsense. I would never ever watch a Brit Marling story again-- they are all about powerful men obsessed with smart women and trying to dominate and subdue them. This one, though, went to the extreme land of nothing to prove in fact.

I've already watched two episodes and can't wait for more. I craved another Flanagan story throughout the year. This is spot on, the same psychologically complex characters like in the last Flannagan three series. You're not invited to pity those poor kids with terminal ilnesses, just follow their journeys. Jumpy bits of horror here and there like in Hill House. It's intense and beautiful and crafty and worth your time completely. Awesome cinematography like in HIll House. I don't know why someone said it's crappy Gen-Z stuff.

Upgrade: It so disappointed me in the end. I took my original ten stars to five and I don't think it deserves even five. The writing is BAAAAAAD. Nothing adds up. The characters must have an arch and evolve...there was no arc, apart from some lame attempts to make couples out of them. What it's meant to be scary turns into huge plot holes...I mean, the so-called devilish appearances. Each story that's told needs an antagonist...apart from destiny (obviously) there is no antagonist, thus no conflict and no tension. I wish Mr. Flanagan revisits his Hill House and draws some conclusions from the writing there.

So disappointing.

I couldn't relate to the characters and got really annoyed with Washington's mimiking all sorts of discomfort each time she spoke with someone; her, showing her upper teeth like a dog barking in episode three made me think: that's enough. The plot lacked conflict and tension and all the characters acted unrealistic. The real world and its conflicts are not mirrored in this series. To be honest, I gave it a try even if the novel/source material left me the same impression, that I'm led by the hand into how the outhor imagines life, not how life really is. Some character motivation for Izzie acting like a brat would've made it for me.

It may be an improvised movie, (if that's the catch and that's what should surprise us poor watchers) but any work that is called creative should have a meaning and a point, a sense. I fail to see the point, what makes this special or even intellectual. In the end it left me thinking of the great Bergman, what he could've done with the motif of a writer that's (of course) inspired by life around. This movie is sterile and futile and goes nowhere. It's even condescendent. A non-movie.

This is a beautiful, lyrical story. Unfortunately, it falls between genres: those expecting horror would find themselves unserved. Those who love dark psychological movies would shy away because it's marked as horror. The fans of the fast-paced Hill House won't rediscover the thrills of the first series. But the essence of the first series is there: the sliding between past, present, and future. The dark stories behind the characters. Bly Manor dives even deeper into the afterlife and the ghosts' parallel existence than Hill House. Do yourself a service and don't compare them, though. Because there is beauty in each in a different way. And you'll dismiss a hell of a story in Bly Manor, dumping it among low-rated series, an undeserved place. If it's not your cup of tea, just don't throw a low rate. Let the others enjoy it, encourage them to think other than Hill House.

This is a beautiful, atmospheric, character-driven show. The cinematography os astonishing. Now that Perry is a legit lawyer, meeting all your criteria for your previous set of mind, please reconsider the only issue that you had with the show in episode 1.

This is all I have to say, and I believe it speaks volumes. It's one of those shows so cleverly plotted, but also character-driven and sucked me in making me falling not only for the idea, but for the personages also. Right now, after a marathon-binge-watching, I so hate Netflix for cancelling it. It's so hard to find real-life characters and real-life problems in a show now.

I've seen Rian Johnson praising himself that he had this 'vision' about Luke's character, that he pushed all the characters to their limits. I think this is the most outrageous statement one can deliver, when that one is honored the making of another movie about the Star Wars universe. For it's not about YOUR personal vision, it's about respect for the values the Star Wars stand for. No one should be allowed to strip the Star Wars Universe of its epicness and greatness in order to introduce his 'personal vision' in the far, far away galaxy. For the stake it's not the amount of money Disney invested into the movie, but at least, again, the respect the producers, the director and the studio owe to the fans that are supposed to buy the tickets to the movie. And it's not any sci-fi Justice League movie (forgive me, Justice League fans). It is Star Wars, and Star Wars belong to their fans, for Star Wars is a legend and our live-history already. It's OUR Star Wars, not theirs. OUR Star Wars cannot be bought and trashed like in an ordinary-whatever-let's do a sequel-movie.

My point here is that the Star Wars Universe stands for loyalty, greatness, epic. That is what the Force, the Jedi represent. Even the anti-heroes like Darth Vader are a match for the Epic we so much love about. So that's what I'm waiting to see in a Star Wars movie. I want to witness Epicness, not petty wrongdoers.

I'm still waiting for the next Star Wars. One in which the legends, the values, the Jedi are respected.

Why would someone bring an entire car (and a motorbike) in the plane and take pictures (forensic ones) of the victim with the smart phone? I mean, disregarding the inconsistency of the plot, this kind of detail makes me discard the series from the very beginning of the show.

The interaction between the characters was unrealistic. The dialogues were platitudes. The characters had no substance and individuality. The plot was non-existent. All the so-called chase was hilarious. The unsub was hilarious, too. The ending was unbelievably blunt. I felt sorry for Gary Sinise landing on this kind of a show. I found myself manipulated to see a new Criminal Minds by the title and by the interaction with the agent David Rossi in the beginning of the episode.

This movie might be in my top-ten not to see comfortable in my bed, on a rainy afternoon. Usually, I like to see hard action movies on the great screen of a theater, and psychological drama movies alone, at home, advertising the family not to disturb. Well, in fact "The Gift" works both ways, and I feel the need to give all my credits and respect to the writers, the director, the whole actors team. Cate Blanchett was amazing from the first scene up to the end. Her performance has been awesome, as the neurotic single mother of three, her gift necessarily to make a living, yet social controversial. At some point, one could see her eyes's injected like after crying a lot, is this possible to be "a special effect", I wonder: yes, but ingenious. Keanu Reeves, one of the most controversial stars of all times, has constructed here an unbelievable role of a rude, brutal, huge, abusing husband versus the kiddo "knock, knock" looks as Neo, a year before. My respects here. The feelings of being unsecured, trapped transcends and catches the viewers. (This is what I have felt). The whole atmosphere was genial realized, like in a black and white old movie, but the end where in the cemetery, one can feels peace and mild autumn colors. While by 3/4 section movie you can guess that Donnie is not the killer and you keep for yourself the "disappointing" relationship with the movie, the switch on scene when Buddie Cole coming back to the rescue,the policeman saying that he was dead was also a great or ingenious ideas. Well, I have just said that the movie connects with the auditorium. That is very rare. Tremendous feeling. I have rated this movie 10 from 10, I do not feel the need to take a star or two. My only fancy question raises like that: why Keannu Reeves has felt right to perform two "bad guy" roles after the huge success in the Matrix, knowing there will be another Matrix -es? I mean "The Watcher" and this "The Gift". Has this superstar felt the need to indulge himself loosing fans... cause the bad guys's characters could dangerously decline a "Speed" or a "Matrix" career of the usually's Keannu Reeves positively heroes. The Warchovschy Bros have not counted this one?

I had have asked my brother, CFO multinational position... quote: "I do want to live on the edge, somewhere, somehow". He has answered "BUT YOU DO LIVE THOSE TIMES: ...You live worst then the 2000th 30 crises".

I made this entrance for Keannu Reeves. "Hey, man... you should take roles like in Tropic Thunder, Ben Stiller had has offered you his impossible role for you In Tropic Thunder. Ben Stiller's role. After that, he has done the role for himself and I have an extremely question: Marine Keanu Reeves, fast in your balls. Give us some of your talent.

I'm feeling good to ask Keannu about that movie. Just because: I had have given him my worst OK for Mr KR, while seeing the movie. Then I have read trivia, Ben Stiller wanted him. WOW!!! Please, Keannu, make a mistake and "kill anything that is not non-human" (meaning not the species of our time, I am an ecologist)

Nevertheless, you are good, better, the best in roles non-like Klaatu. Time to change, Keannu. Do take those roles like in Tropic Thunder.

Guys, you all have for sure read others books written by Friedrich Dürrenmatt. He was, by the way, one of the greatest European writer. You might take into consideration that: 1. (pedophile) Serial Killers in Europe can be counted by the finger of two hands 2. the notion "Serial Killer" has been used after the so-called "nowadays" Ted Bundy's killings 3. Dürrenmatt has done his best writing about facts that would have a profile and a definition in his afterlife.

I do not want to show myself here as an idiot pretending to preach lessons to you. I really think that Dürrenmatt himself could not deal with a decent ending. Director Sean Penn has done a great job with this movie, considering all that issues, plus, maybe he really has felt the need to respect the original novella.

I have not liked the ending: fishtail, we use to say in my country. I certainly do not like the obviously clues: 8/10 year pretty girl in red dress. (I hate the ending and the red dress).

Nevertheless, 10 stars for Sean Penn' courage to bring in an USA movie a 1958 novella. Sean Penn could not use CSI's methods, but he has been great in story-flow here.

Oh, Jack Nicholson in a drama, fat, alcoholic and obsessed by his golden retirement watch ( that is for me a real clue)... Fascinating!

I have really liked the title. Also, I have expected so much from director Clint Eastwood and producers Stephen Spielberg ( Matt Damon being the collateral victim). I am not the one "re-inventing the wheel". Nevertheless, at their level, it is a must that all their movies be in front of others. It is incredible that they accepted such a common screenplay. Not only the story, but the emotional touch are completely out of what they could do and we expect to achieve, or delivered from them. One must say that everyone could have their ups and downs, but all three of them altogether? I have great respect from Mr Eastwood, Mr Spielberg, Mr Damon. They used to have guts. This movie is one disappointing, I could not recognized all three down drift. Respectfully.

The feeling that we all are crossing paths one versus another, yet not noticing but shadows, not humans, overcame me, viewing for the first time this movie. I will not see the movie again, because of the hard feelings that transcend from each chapter.

Everything here is not about the plot, but about solitude and neglecting the stranger that is passing on your street, walking shoulder to shoulder with you, or living in the same house you live. I have found myself remembering fragments from "The Stand", starring Gary Sinise, 1994, in the end of the movie. Do we need an Apocalypse to make us notice the others, living or passing next to you? Is it more important to enter museums or noticing the way people from other country live their lives, when visiting crossing borders? The whole cast is like a feast, playing their parts wonderfully. I have wondered why a mega star like Keanu Reeves (even controversial), had has accepted this short supporting role. I have thought that he has sensed this about his character: probably the only one meant to bring hope, versatility, and future in the story. My best regards for his talent.

One bet I have loosed towards my friends: Keanu Reeves can do comedy gender. One big surprise, he can laugh again, the very one KR that asked us to measure happiness, so he can know for him if he has the right percent to be the happy man without a smile everybody needs... OK, enough of that. The plot is all right, even ingenious. The synopsis step hooked me Wow… An ex-unjustified convict that has served his unjustified time chooses to be a real con? Cool. Comedy is the best way to make that way an educational way. We do not want unjustified cons, turning to real cons as an example for our kids. Keanu Reeves chooses to do Indies. Cool and risky, yet I'd like to be is his Indies shoes. Yes, he is not anymore the stubborn swat man from Speed, not the Devil's prefer ate son, not the naive Neo, not the romantic kisser from the Lake House, not the righteous Constantine we know, not the man that is in shape looking 45 in Street Kings, not 20 as we use to consider him. I always wandered. Why people do not like this superstar, so obviously a perfect example of modest billionaire human being? The most probable answer is that he is handsome and talented, probably one can be talented versus handsome and the other way, no both ways, no way. In addition, we expect that all our stars look happy, smiley like Barbie and Ken do. Therefore, my answer is that. Take it or leave it, this guy is on top of the game.

Yes, Constantine raised a lot of criticism and it was also extreme admiring. However, is it not the only definition of a great state of art? I admire Keanu Reeves because he has a certain feeling for acting in these controversial roles. And, My God, he is given his soul to us, every moment of playing. Maybe he was Constantine all that time. So, themes: Believe in God; make redemption for your mistakes. Those themes sounds so, so common. Yet they are genial proposed to us in that movie. I cannot end this comment, probably never ever be read by someone. In the end, I have seen Constantine in Amsterdam in2005, now on my laptop (legally bought), and the movie let me speechless. Example: Keanu REEVES. Like... the challenge of Keanu fighting with the worm man, in real world he ingenious fights with none. All team just try to create something special, and I am so sorry because in the movie the whole work behind the scenes is unidentified. Probably what they do every time into a movie. And, sorry, the Gabriel Angel… Tilda was herself a state of art.

It is my privilege to write about this fascinating movie. About love, there are hundreds and hundreds of movies. About "The Lake House", we speak not only about live and love, but about trust defying the time. We always want that our true love to despite time. Beauty is not timeless, and we all females cares about how one's looks in the eyes of the loved one. And our loved ones say that's all right, we turn into grandmas. Yet, each of us really tries to keep the unkept, the beauty. Those two in "The Lake House" are timeless lovers. As for the artists, Sandra and Keannu used to give us the best of their soul." In the end, I'm just a man like you", that is the finale in one's Eminem songs. I'm sorry, but in the end, Keannu and Sandra are not meant to be people like us. That is the charm of the movie, they talk about love, but they are aliens, far from the most dedicated love I have seen in my mind. The screenplay, the whole movie is nothing real. But they leave a space so we can dream about. And in my opinion, Keannu and Sandra saved the movie from a soap opera.

I had seen the movie and that has determined me to read the book. Both movie and book are miles away from the horror genre. Both are exceptionally profound. The book is better, tough. That may be because of the power of the word. Example: read the section where Louis is awakening to his new vampire "life". The sensations, the intensity of perceiving the sounds, colors of the night are astonishing described. One does not need a psychological book after reading "Interview with a vampire". Yet those pages are quite impossible to be visualized. The movie, I am keeping in my mind as excellent and quite unique. And I remember that Tom Cruise has searched a way of uncommon vampire biting. He has founded that in the lions attack, he moved half a circle around, then the bite. So professional attitude.