philrich-785-393285's reviews

This series just smacks of David Kelley's over the top production, full of angled shots and endless flashbacks, that inevitably jumps the shark. A good story that goes into ridiculous and unbelievable corners, very much like The Undoing. From clever and well acted, to well acted and absurd.

It's a mildly amusing film (hence, 4 stars), but as the title of my brief review says, it's ironic that for a movie that is about how to write a movie it's such a predictable and weak story with one dimensional, paper-thin, characters, in which the end of the movie is signaled virtually from the beginning of the film. The writer should have watched the movie before writing the movie, and learned something about how to write a movie - but then it would be a time travel movie.

Hardly worth watching. Disappointing, cliched, trite, and with a noisy and ridiculous story dating back to the simplistic story lines of 60s superhero comics, rather than the more sophisticated stories and characters found in the best superhero movies, such as Batman Begins. Despite its opening, the best scene in the movie (by far), WW84 really has little to offer, including in special effects (all of which are now standard, even in the worst superhero movies), and what a waste of Gal Godot, an actor born to play Wonder Woman. Even her costume, a glitzy throwback to the classic WW outfit, was disappointing when compared to the more sedate version in the previous WW movie. The movie will not go down as one of the classic superhero movies, but will lie alongside the weak Fantastic Four and other similar failed superhero movies, closer to the campy Batman TV series than some of the high quality, well written, well acted, and well developed superhero movies we've seen grace the big screen. What a disappointment.

What a load of rubbish. It could have been good, but the slapstick acting, throughout the film, including the very last line, just was too far over the top. I was actually shocked at how stupid it was. Why did I watch it, you ask? Nothing better to do, I'm afraid, in these days of Covid-19.

With a completely different ending, It isn't really Brave New World, is it? It's like saying we're going to make a new version of Hamlet, except we're going to have a different ending. I mean, Shakespeare was OK, but I prefer that we end the play differently. Brave new world was substantially different throughout, but the fact that the TV series has a different ending really killed it for me. Giving it five stars is generous.

Jeff Bridges' performance was excellent and nuanced. I was sorry he didn't get an Oscar nomination for best supporting male actor. The movie was not only better than I expected, but much better than I expected. It was a clever and smart story that interwove a series of individual/parallel stories together, was well acted all around, and generally well done (Dakota Johnson I didn't think much of, Ithough. I'm not sure what draws audiences to her as an actor). All others did a pretty good job. I couldn't give the movie a 10, but was tempted to give it a 9, although decided to go with 8 stars as, although it's well done and a good movie, it's not a "great" movie. It's approach to interweaving stories is a little derivative of certain other movie makers, such as Tarantino, but then again most films derivative of other films.

Beautifully shot, well acted, and a film not easily classified into a genre. Other than that, my review title describes my thoughts. A rather ridiculous story, much of which is either never explained or pointless, and slllloooowww. I'd have it to watch it again to see if I missed details that might have better explained some of the plot, as I admit I got bored pretty quickly and paid less attention - but there's no way I could/would watch this movie again.

A 6 or a 7? I went with 6, but would have preferred 6.5.

The film is beautifully made, which is no surprise, with beautiful costumes and scenery from the Victorian era, as well as being beautifully acted and well produced. However, although loosely based on the biographical book of the same name (The Invisible Woman), the plot line is vague and esoteric; that is, "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest."

We see glimpses into the life and behaviors of Dickens, his mistress Ellen "Nelly" Ternan, and Dickens' wife, but the film provides little depth or detail, and certainly no explanation for the meaning of these glimpses, or even a clear time line. If you know enough about Dickens ahead of time it will make sense; if not, it will remain a mystery (such as, "what was that scene about?") unless you, as I did this morning, start learning more about Dickens' life as he lived it, including better understanding the book the film was based upon. We see otherwise unexplained glimpses into the life of Dickens and Nelly, some of which seem to be inaccurate dramatizations (poetic license?), which have little meaning on their own, and leave you wondering what just happened, and why was that important. You'll get the overall picture, but it will be like a jigsaw puzzle with many missing pieces, some of which , because of those missing pieces, are actually incorrectly put together. If you're not already familiar with the life of Dickens and Ternan, read up on Dickens before you go, or be prepared to read up on him after you see the movie. But don't otherwise expect to come up with a clear picture of anything, except that Dickens and Ternan had a long-standing affair that affected her past his death.