LeoDeLeo

Up until just before the extended gazebo scene, things were raw and mostly fun and good.

Once the gazebo came in everything just fell apart into meaningless garbage till the end - and that's a huge chunk of the movie.

Did Elizabeth Banks had a dumb-down stroke when directing that chunk?

Whatta waste of a nice concept w a good first third.

The writer/director/producer of this movie was very much involved in the hit 90s sitcom "Mad About You". The attempt here is too obviously to try to recreate the same dynamics of the two main cast (w sex-role reversal), but unfortunately not succeeding.

The dense dialogue, which way too obviously try to smack the viewers over the head w "listen, listen! Ain't the banter witty", falls flat mostly because of its forced scripted nature, delivered by characters who would not at all naturally talk this way. It may have worked to a much better extent if delivered by purposed quirky characters in an old Woody Allen movie or a Wes Anderson outing.

While Winona has put energy and humour in her role, Keanu is a total miscast - his flat bland monotonous self-conscious delivery of the overly showy lines just amplify the cringe and script misfire, often appearing more concerned with rolling the jumble of words out of him as if it's a chore to be accomplished rather than delivering them as a natural flow of words and thoughts between two characters interacting within a situation.

Jason Schwartzman would have been much more suited for this role - though the bombastic script would remain a problem.

I give it a 6 for 'good try' - but the writer/director seems 80% focussed on the words rather than how believable it would 'look-and-sound' on screen, and spoken by what sort of characters.

Firstly - the whole thing could very likely have had an even more interesting vibe if Andre Braugher (Captain Holt of Brooklyn Nine-Nine) was able to complete his role as the victim AB Wynter - Andre unfortunately, and ironically, died halfway through filming and was replaced by G Esposito - who did a good job, but no one can bring on the sort of aloofness as Andre could, which would have suited the Wynter character to a T. RIP Andre.

The good - very nicely acted by a competent cast w interesting characters and some w accompanying backstories; relatively efficient dialogue; good blend of humour; and captivating cinematography.

(Although using a fake Hugh Jackman just looks cheap and unfunny and should have been left out if they couldn't get the real deal.)

The main, and not insignificant, flaw of this 'could have been wonderfully entertaining but really not-as-much' whodunnit is the same one almost ALL series of its genre suffer from - way overstretched pass its point of welcome.

After Ep 3 the viewers already get the idea each episode will be just more red herrings and incomplete narratives thrown in to fill in the void. Flitting between the event night and the eventual formal hearing was interesting at first, but by mid of Ep 3 it's already a half-tired repetitive gimmick as was everything else.

This whodunnit as with many such, just does not have the plot fuel to fire through 8 hour-long episodes without tonnes of unnecessary fillers. A much tighter carefully edited 4-episode structure would have made this a true winner leaving the viewers wanting more, rather than the 'yeah-yeah finally the end is nigh' tedium it brings upon the viewers now.

This one does have legs for a few more series w the birding Detective Cordelia Cupp in tow, but Netflix please! - stop demanding too many episodes of any series when the story just doesn't call for it.