Opiniones de brud-br

Decent overview of positive sides of Buffet's life.

Then, from the get go turns product placements for his obvious investments like Coca-Cola, McDonald's etc.

Then they try to persuade you to believe he's some kind of superstar philanthropist. Guess who was one of the biggest donors to science and causes like preserving ocean? Jeffrey Epstein!

Philanthropy is just a nice word for TAX EVASION of mega-rich. Take his buddy Bill Gates for example and his vaccine role.

It's clear propaganda and should be flagged as such.

Cheers.

I watched The Bible episode.

Surprisingly, they interviewed real experts - not some wannabe comedians who comment on topics they know nothing about (like most of American documentaries do in the last 10 years).

But their stream of thought is weirdly cut. I constantly had a feeling they have so much more to say.

This is particularly frustrating because more than half of the runtime was spent asking rhetorical question (with cheap dynamic music playing in the background): Who wrote the Bible? We all know the answer: We don't exactly know.

Instead only last 15-20min the right questions were asked where these experts' knowledge would have flourished.

Anyways, not complete waste of time.

Again and again we've been blessed by the 3rd grade critics and irrelevant film workers comment on film classics and put their own agendas upon them.

Dirty Harry - toxic masculinity The Graduate - stalking Lethal Weapon - terrible husband

I mean the audacity of these people is just unbelievable. I wouldn't even dare to take such a big number 2 on movies that define the cinema. If they really wanted to explore sociological impact of these movies on modern society, then maybe go interview anthropologist, sociologist and other social scientist that made their careers on pop cultural impact on modern society.

Only then, this load of nonsense would be watchable even with an agenda.

Exactly because such people exist today we never, but NEVER can expect movies like Scarface to get funded again. Just imagine: a Cuban immigrant goes to USA but instead of asking girls for a permission to talk to them he just gropes them, and he's a paid assassin as well, not a regular Joe working 9-5.

Apsurd.

Please let me wake up in 70s.

Cheers.

Eurodance at its best. Cheesiness to the fullest: corny piano melodies, bizarre costumes, nonsense but catchy choreography but all these things are part of the genre.

It was kinda TikTok but in mid-nineties.

Captain Jack and his eponymous song are nowadays considered as one of the classics of Eurodance, at least German Eurodance.

Video is also classic exhibit of the era.

Girls marching in seemingly military uniform but those are only mini skirts in camouflage pattern. Then they go through some kind of "military training" but only to reveal more of their skin. Hot girls bouncing around while Captain Jack overlooks his "troops".

Awesome!

Too much b-roll.

I don't mind dramatised parts, but constant b rolls of airplane, city, sky, landscape do not add to the plot. On the contrary, it makes film less fluid.

Also, it would have been nice to have some insight in criminal investigation of this twerp.

I was really confused and surprised to see this show rate so high, both on a score and number of 10 star reviews.

Show's biggest problem is script, especially dialogue. Screenwriters should have spent more time developing the script then reading the scriptures. I understand they wanted to make a modern depiction of what happened, but most of the time it seems like High School Musical Judea.

There's a lot of smaller problems I don't care to mention, but why o why people still make English language series and then some characters speak proper English (Jesus, Rabi, Romans) and others speak with an accent.

Apparently it was crowdfunded series so probably, as one reviewer wrote, those who contributed made favorable reviews.

Acting is horrendous.

It just one tiny bit unwatchable.

Biggest problem is, as with most modern under-60-min documentaries, interviewing people with no credibility on topic. LL Cool J, I respect him as a pioneer of hip-hop, but he just does not have a place in this kind of documentary. If you want to make a film about Muhammad Ali's impact on contemporary culture, then OK invite artists and other people, but not here.

Also a big problem is opening a bunch of topics as segregation, political instability in 60s, human rights movement, African American pride and then not closing those topics. They just say: "oh he wasn't getting a table in his hometown" and not following up on the issue. Overly simplifying complex topics.

Awesome archive footage.

Nice interviews.

But how do you connect racism in America with early touring of the Beatles?

Not even Whoopi could explain it.

It only distracts you form the focus of the documentary. But I guess today it is not enough to make a concise film, you have to impose certain concepts to make it more educational or something.

A nice little gem of Yugoslav cinema.

I read that initial release of the movie was very poorly received. I can only assume it is because it shows decaying moral of (then) modern marriage and brings controversial topics (for those times at least) such as adultery and abortion.

However, the film is very well directed with equally good script. It kinda reminds me of Bertolucci's first film.

Its flashback structure and cinematography give obvious nods towards film noir.

The music is getting in the way in too many occasions, you just hear it as unnecessary noise as it dramatic effect wanes (being overlong). There isn't almost any archive material, except few basketball clips and short Bias interviews. The movie changes focus from Bias to DC drug problem, then to drug legislation and then back to Bias family, not scoring in any of those occasions.

Good overview of the life of Frank Zappa.

However, it is too long for the amount of information it puts out. There is only like 5 band members they interviewed.

Also, there are a lot of random montages which my be interesting in the first 15-20mins, but after 30min mark it becomes redundant.

Furthermore, it is weird that for the most part you don't see who exactly is talking on the screen. I would understand this editing choice if it was something relevant to the story, but on top of one topic being discussed there is a video or a series of photos of totally unrelated events. To make things worse, sometimes during these montages, they give names of the band members; the names are not the people talking over it so you get confused whose voice you are hearing in the first place.

Anyways, all of the other things are enjoyable. I think that with a bit wiser editing this could have easily been way better documentary.

About every sci-fi genre cliché you can imagine is stuffed in screenplay for Expanse. By the end of the first episode I realized where this was going. I watched another episode, just to be safe that I'm not going to skip a cool Sci-fi flick. Huge disappointment, just like Sense8.

The dialog is weak, production design is great. Acting is sub-par.

I wish more emphasis was made on the storyline, characters and generally the script, instead of, albeit very good, producing designs and effects.

This piece does not translate well to the screen. The camera aimlessly changes POV from one character to another. Overlong monologs do not feel genuine, which turn glimpses of acting prowess into uncomfortable exceptions. I would blame directing for that.

First off let's list good points about this movie: + Awesome performances by both actors (Pattinson confirms his Good Time performance) + Cinematography is wonderful. Very thoughtful and atmospheric. Plays with shadows exceptionally well + Interesting aspect ratio brings black and white to fashion yet again

Everything else is incoherent and/or pretentious series of sequences which as a whole do not make an art form which we call a film (movie).

Cons

• Film shifts perspective in arbitrary fashion. One moment you follow hyper-realist psycho-drama, and the next you're witnessing D-grade monster flick. Without any point, it should be mentioned.
• Extensive use of symbolism (much like a goat in The Witch). Again, without any point but to fulfill its own purpose - kinda like that line in Ni***s in Paris "Nobody knows what it means, but it's provocative!"
• I do not mind slow films (one of my favorites is Barry Lyndon, not a blockbuster). But pacing in this film is broken only by above-mentioned awkward outbursts of supernatural, which is highly dissatisfying because it is not followed by a scene that would be consistent with its narrative.

One final remark, I don't know whether should have I laughed or not on couple of occasions, but I did.