mfoxartist

I don't mind complex movies that you have to pay close attention to. I watch a lot of them and typically chuckle at reviewers who "don't get it" when they give the movie a 1 or a 2.

But for once, I'm in the same league as the other baffled viewers. Sure, in the end, I "got it" and basically understood what happened. But that's where the "ultimately way too little" part of my review title comes in. All this subterfuge and ultra-clever yet nonsensical plotting just to end up with that ending?

For me, it just wasn't worth the trip. The production, set designs, acting and score were all fine. But the script...the most critical element of all...was the weak link. And that led to weak direction as well (or perhaps the director made a weak script even weaker).

I like M. Night Shyamalan movies, but he didn't write or direct this movie (Celine Held and Logan George co-wrote and co-directed). Shyamalan was the key producer and he probably felt the finished product was a winner. For some viewers, it is. For others like me, it was too much trickery and gamesmanship for too little reward.

I was there in '82 and it was my first-ever rock festival. The documentary shows how well produced the entire festival was and it really did feature most of the great rock talent from its era.

There are full-song performances from The B-52s, The Police, Eddie Money, The Cars, Santana, Tom Petty and Fleetwood Mac, plus several snippets of songs from other performers. I wish they had been able to present a broader array of the music, but for a single documentary they did pretty well.

As a film, it wasn't particularly well put together, though. The festival itself was way more exciting than what is shown here. There was some repetitiveness in the monologues, which is kind of inexcusable. But overall, a solid film about a great festival, and (as stated in the doc) they really did set the standard for how to do things right for festivals in the future.

But I have to agree with others who say that it dragged a bit in places. The terrific acting by most of the cast, especially Matthew Goode, Alexej Manvelov and Leah Byrne, sustained my interest in the series. It also had an exciting, satisfying conclusion, which actually raised my score from a 7 to an 8. But could it have been done just as well in 4 or 5 episodes? Yeah, for sure.

This was not a 10-star series in my mind, but everyone has their own opinion and it's hard to argue with them. But when comparing it with some of the great detective movies and shows, "Dept. Q" is far from perfect. It is very entertaining, with spots of dry, black humor, and the characters are endearing enough to root for.

I look forward to a second season, which it is sure to get, and hope they can mix in a bit quicker pace and a plot that evolves more dynamically. "Dept. Q" has a lot going for it and crime drama fans are sure to enjoy it...they might even think it ranks with the all-time greats.