dansview's reviews

It was not made clear why this family needed to dine in such a fancy restaurant to discuss a dire family crisis.

The last thing you would need is some food savant Maitre D explaining your food when your life is on the line. Did the Richard Gere character realize that this would take place? I would assume that he ate there before.

I understand that the film makers set it here to show the contrast between their lives and the homeless and downtrodden. Or to show that they are callous posers. But I found the feast aspect unrealistic.

The best thing in the movie was the Steve Coogan character's monologues and critiques. Not because they were necessarily true, but because he was so real in his exasperation with himself and the world. They were funny, tragic, and to some degree true.

Reviewers say this was a Left-Wing vehicle. Apparently, the Director intended that. I don't know if the book author did. But I'm not sure what side the politician character was supposed to be on.

There are some hints that he is a poser Liberal. But other indications that he was battling both conservative and liberal instincts.

The emotionally disturbed character hated elites and wealth. He seemed to pride himself on being an old school principled Liberal. But he hated humanity and himself.

In a politically correct Lefty movie, you would expect the women to be the heroes. But not here. They seemed to rule the roost when it came to protecting their nests. But not for standing up for moral absolutes.

I think the creators were trying to make a point about the banality of existence and everything comes down to self-preservation in the end.

The depressed character is a Historian with an obsession with the American Civil War. It makes sense. Because he was fascinated by what makes people effective warriors for a cause. And he likens it to the battles of the ancient world when right and wrong or allegiances seemed clearer or more basic.

As others have noted, this film needed trimming. Less of the dinner food descriptions and the Gettysburg wanderings. But one of the best dialogue scenes does take place at Gettysburg.

The violence of the main crime was too much for me. But no close-ups of it were shown. What was shown upset me to the point of needing to look away.

I loved the ending!! The ambiguity was a perfect metaphor for the moral ambiguity of these people and the post-modern world.

I loved this movie. But I will attempt to review it objectively.

I adore the concept of being "out on the water." I had never heard of this river/lake in Louisiana, but it looked very seductive. It was wide and long in a flat area, with some homes on the banks. Great cinematography.

We have a male hero to root for, a woman with her own ambitions and lots of characters with angst or chips on their shoulder, as the expression goes.

That was my primary criticism. There were multiple people with some sort of haunted past.

I didn't really understand or buy the coach's personal demons. Okay. He was in Vietnam, he inspired some teammates to join him, and he couldn't save them. But that's hardly something to hold onto for life. His mates made their own decisions.

Meanwhile what did he do for a living besides coach during rowing season?

Another guy used to drink, another lost some loved ones in an accident, and yet another had dad issues. They really stacked the deck. But I suppose you could have several people on a team with angsty issues from the past. It just felt a tad forced.

I loved the depiction of friendship. Brotherhood, young love, and sports challenge.

I would have liked more character development about the coach, what happened between the cocky guy and his ex, where was this college, and what were these guys studying.

I like Michael Shannon. But don't expect him to go somewhere new here. It's the standard version of him.

The girls were beautiful, supportive, and had a sense of humor. But this was a guy's movie.

Everyone in this is a pretty decent person. That's rare in this cynical movie era.

The kids are close to their mothers and their guidance counselor, they don't swear much, they are conservative in their sexual expression, and their great flaw is studying too much.

Most of the adults are either wise or chill.

We learn a subtle lesson. That's it's fine to strive hard for success, But that it behooves us to seek out human connections.

They had to throw in praise of Obama and make the urban duo the real cool ones. But I'll grant this indulgence. It never crossed the line into preachy or self-righteous.

The kid actors were totally natural. I was very impressed, and I rarely am. The Helen Hunt counselor character was just the right amount of helpful, cool, and wise, without being sanctimonious.

Meanwhile no attention was paid to race with our leads. As it should be. People who grow up together often wind up drawn to each other. Regardless of race.

It was so refreshing to find something with barely any profanity, no sex, no cynicism, and lots of decent people as characters.

This movie is not really about Istanbul per say, except as a metaphor, as many big cities are, for escaping to the masses.

Meaning away from the fishbowl of where you came from, and the limiting borders of your previous existence, and to the generic mass of humanity, where you either lose yourself or find yourself. Or possibly both.

The premise is interesting, if not fully fleshed out. Students of architecture are asked to share the impact the city has had on them.

Our two leads, both female, have come to the city from a smaller city many hours away. One came a long time ago, and one just recently. You see the before and after effects. The seasoned, hardened mature woman, and the fresh-faced acolyte.

You never see any of the students sketching things. Yet you would think that architecture majors would be constantly drafting. There is very little discussion about buildings or urban planning.

But there is plenty of narration about the neighborhoods of the city as experienced by the young lead. The mature woman is done with this city and the country. That's an important part of the story.

The combined forces of a complex and perhaps suffocating culture, and her personal baggage have beat her down.

There is no action in this movie whatsoever, nor sex. It is strictly discussions, arguments, crying, and philosophical observations.

The main characters feel torn between obligation, and the yearning to be free. People who make movies are generally liberal and sometimes free spirits.

So don't be surprised that this film presents traditional religion as burdensome to women. Some may find it offensive. There is some graphic symbolization.

Casting was impressive. The mature lead has a gravitas about her that draws you in. The young one is radiant.

The cinematography is excellent. There are interesting shots of the city and creative angles.

But be ready for potential boredom too. Because there is an enormous amount of talking, shots of people listening or thinking, and crying.

Turkey is an ancient place. Let's hear more about what exactly plagues the city and country, that is driving out one lead and baffling the other.

I gave it a 7 because it's a clever concept and the acting was good. Hey you can do a movie about anyone you want.

If you want to see a film about people who love Bill Clinton, 90s music, and secular values go ahead. Perhaps the intended audience is that demographic.

If you're culturally, socially, or politically conservative, you find it off-putting. Despite a lot of sexual innuendo, there is no sex here. That shows restraint, which is actually conservative.

You get a front seat for a man's journey, as he enters the career world and finds romance. But that doesn't mean that either him or the ladies are admirable or enjoyable characters.

Nor do characters need to be those things. Although it would help if they are likeable, because you want to root for them.

These people refer to lovers as if they are just casual nibbles from a box of crackers.

Like sharing your heart and your body with multiple people is just a natural process of life. Granted a huge percentage of postmodern people do think and live this way.

The use of music was awkward and obvious, as were the 90s references in general. I always prefer subtlety with soundtracks.

I believed J. K. Simmons' depression. He sold it well.

He also makes a key statement about the way he was before and after meeting his wife. To an extent, he was already a depressed person prior to meeting his wife. So he has just returned to being a guy without a lifeforce.

I wasn't sure about the boy's performance for the first half of the film, but I sure changed my mind.

Once he began to show frustration with everything and expressing himself, he hit a home run. I didn't know he had it in him.

People need each other. That's really the theme. The Simmons character isn't exactly a sexy dynamo with his permanent emotionless demeanor and scraggly beard. But a lady is drawn to him.

Perhaps out of loneliness. But also because she senses that a person who feels things so deeply must be a person of value.

Interestingly, if the boy had his way, he would not have joined a sports team. But the school requirement to join forced him to dig deep in his character, where he found reserves of strength and fortitude.

As with so many movies, the characters never seek God as at least part of their approach to healing. I've watched four character-driven pictures lately and no one shared a religious thought.

This movie is very depressing. I had no idea going in. But the characters have an arc. So hang in there and enjoy the ride.

The lead actress carried this film. The boy was good too in an understated way. But she exuded a rare freshness.

I like the idea that two wounded souls with a connection help each other while on a mission.

I always come back to the same criticism. Lack of character development. Who is the boy? He has white parents and seems to be of some sort of mixed background. That's odd casting without an explanation.

The girl still calls her foster mother "Mrs." after a decade? The kids are the same age and are from a relatively small area, Yet they have never seen each other?

I get the idea of her needing a driver, but I don't believe that she would camp with someone she didn't even know.

I do respect that there was a scene when the boy breaks down with emotion. That is often missing in emotional films where one character never takes their guard down.

It has a lovely theme of healing, and the power of human connection, with beautiful scenery and a good twist.

Part of what sells it is the use of unknown performers. That makes it seem more real.

I loved the setting. I was not familiar with that quirky neighborhood and would like to see more of it in movies.

I liked the premise. Celebrities do shop and eat. Sometimes alone. I've encountered many.

A travel bookshop is such a fun space. It could attract all sorts of enthusiastic people in a city like London, on their way to exotic locales or dreaming of such. But that angle was not explored.

At the end of the day, isn't Hugh Grant possibly and ironically more glamorous than Julia Roberts?

Unlike other reviewers, I do buy the idea of a famous actress finding a bumbling boy- next-door appealing. But I need to know more about his backstory and hers. It's called character development and there was very little here.

Even in romantic comedy, you need to explain to me who these people are, who they have been, what they believe, and where they are going.

Why does he own a travel bookstore? Why did she become an actress? Where did she grow up? She mentioned being poor before. Let's hear more. He got a call from his mom. Where is his dad? Is the reason why he is so under confident, because he didn't have a dad?

I'm ok with the idea of a guy having a quirky collection of friends. Birds of a feather flock together. I believe it.

The placement of famous songs, even by cover artists, as filler during shots of someone walking or during montages is so obnoxious. It lacks grace. Perhaps try some indie songs.

My favorite line came from Hugh Grant when answering about why he was divorced. It showed simple, clear self-awareness.

I would need at least one scene where the guy loses his temper at the woman for manipulating him. It never came. I can't believe a romance where one person walks all over the other, and the topic never comes up.

This relationship seemed shallow and doomed.

It's not often that you see a movie about blue collar people in coastal California. Here we have an Hispanic bar server and the son of a white mechanic.

I did see a picture with Ben Affleck about a blue collar white guy in Long Beach, California who starts coaching high school basketball. But it's rare.

I believe both of the main characters' stories. The aspiring singer waiting tables and the gentle son who can't live up to his dad's expectations.

The writers made sure that the young woman got in all her Left Wing political zingers. The guy defended his values with lesser impact. But there was an attempt to create balance and to establish that these people had opposing views.

The lead actress was the Executive Producer. She made her music the foundation of the story. If you like it, you will be more likely to enjoy the story. I couldn't stand it. So it made things tougher for me. Because it's almost constantly playing.

More time was spent on character development than in it is in many other movies, so I give credit for that.

I didn't believe the drug dealer. Because he was on the smaller side and not very intimidating. He seemed to do his own bill collection. But he seemed more like a junkie than an enforcer.

I liked the moral of the story and the arc of the characters. That by letting one's guard down and letting other people into your emotional world, you humanize your life and reap the benefits of care and commitment.

Yes, there were some cheesy effects and inaccurate religious material, but the vibe was memorable. That's what makes me keep coming back.

The orange skies, the rain, the eerie music. I could do without the cliche religious-horror music, but the rest was dramatic.

Demi Moore was radiant. The purity of her character was perfect for the storyline. Others have criticized it, but it wouldn't have worked if she was a more complicated person.

She was willing to accept the spirituality of her situation and research it.

The treatment of the Jewish material was very sloppy and lazy. The front door ornaments were placed incorrectly, and the Rabbi's reaction to barely grazing Demi's hand was an exaggeration.

Plus, much of the material was from Christianity not Judaism, but not always clarified as such.

As others have remarked, the sensitivity in the drifter's face and voice was unique. I believed his sadness.

Having concurrent storylines of a pregnant Demi and a prisoner's fate was intriguing and unique. I also like the husband's low key, devoted, yet slightly cynical demeanor, as a contrast to Demi's innocence.

That teen boy was very natural. I like how he wasn't intimated by a beautiful grown woman. He had his own dork confidence.

If you can tolerate the slow pace, complicated plot line, and a few lazy cliches, you will delight in the passion, the mystery, the hope, and the rain.

We got a chance to get to know these characters through conversation, and that was a blessing.

How often do we see a nice man with "old school" values depicted on film? Eastwood in Gran Torino was ultimately a decent person, but not nice.

Wahlberg's character may have been a bar fly, but he had a heart of gold. He conveyed this with genuine sweetness and that is rare in the modern film world.

I loved the reminder that small towns are real places with real people living life. Also, the idea of independent jewelry stores that are not part of a chain or located within a mall.

I did not understand how a 60-ish man with a great job from an affordable era, in a rural state, could still owe money on his modest house after 30 years on the job.

He would also presumably have good health insurance. Yet the film depicted him as potentially broke and homeless, burdened by a mortgage and medical bills.

If sex out of wedlock disturbs you, then Wahlberg's character will not be to your liking. The old guy only gets massages.

The immorality of the ending could disturb some viewers or seem inconsistent. But perhaps the idea was to show an arc in a character's development. Even a good man can find ways to justify certain behavior or allow himself to get some revenge.

Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, sometimes unethical choices reverberated, causing harm to people we did not intend to hurt.

I loved this move for the friendship depicted and for the way it showed how much men cherish women. Not just for sex but for companionship and acceptance.

Pacing was slow, yet fit the circumstances perfectly. Music played a role, but not an obnoxious one. The brief violence did not show close-ups.

I like the idea of a trip being the catalyst for change in a life or relationship. Because trips shake up our routine and force us to reevaluate. Especially if they have some sort of purpose.

People sometimes grow apart when either the dynamics of a relationship change, or people's interests change. It's not necessarily anyone's fault.

People are also sometimes attracted to someone who maybe other people are not attracted to. Meaning you can pass judgement on someone's attraction to another person.

Liam's character was lonely and wounded. So was Laura's. That may have been the source of the attraction.

Having said that, like many other reviewers I didn't find Laura's character appealing. She seemed petulant or irritated. Burned out. Cynical.

I found their mutual wry, sardonic, or slightly cynical banter during flirtation nauseating, but believable.

I was glad that the makers balanced the idealization of Morrocco with some realism during a key scene.

I also noticed the subtle characterization of the writers as Left wing, as most of the world probably is outright, including even more likely, artists and writers. I'm referring to one writer's comments about coal energy.

The film makers are also probably on the Left, as they portray our male protagonist's Wall Street colleagues as piranhas.

The scenery is quite nice. But honestly you can find that type of scenery in part of California or the American Southwest.

The pace was excruciatingly slow and the tone somber. That gets old. But the slowness did allow for characters to get to know each other. Although they didn't get too deep.

I thought the casting of the girlfriend was actually quite good. We never heard the young couple's back story, but perhaps they met in college.

She was quite supportive of her boyfriend's outsider status at the writer's retreat initially. Some have said that he was not supportive of her.

But I think her recent success as a writer had already changed the dynamics of their relationship, and he was already lukewarm toward her before the trip. The trip and conference just brought out what was bound to come out anyways. They were heading in different directions.

I'm glad that they did not overwhelm the imagery with a popular soundtrack. Just some local music.

Nice scenery, good eye candy for the women, a few good lines that sparked further thought, but super slow.

Orthodox Judaism, including in the group depicted in this series, revolves around a cycle of joyful celebrations.

There is one every weekend on the Sabbath and many holidays and life cycle events throughout the year. We hardly saw that. Everyone seems depressed or focusing on the Holocaust.

Not every female wants to join the secular world. Many enjoy being a wife and mother, and the continuity of serving God.

We did see that some of the women in the community who gave the girl encouragement did not seem unhappy.

We never hear our main character explain what it is she wants out of life and what she hates about her current life.

Does she want to dive into piano or have an amazing intimate life? She never told us fully.

The lifestyle of the young people she met in Berlin would not fit her, even if she wasn't religious. Not everyone is fit to be a musician or a European hipster. What was so great about them?

Unbridled freedom without any structure or rooted tradition is not necessarily fulfilling. So they play instruments and are sexually liberated. That's not for everyone.

But we get the sense that we are supposed to believe that their way is great and the Jewish way sucks.

I realize that this series was based upon a true story of one particular woman's life experience. But choosing an actress who is extremely small and intense stacks the deck for a dark portrayal.

Because her looks would add to her alienation. I don't think the real woman had quite that issue.

We only see three types of religious males. The drunken father, the thuggish cousin, and the ineffectual wimp. That's not fair. Did the real woman not have any other types in her world?

Having said all that, the Yiddish was thorough and realistic, and the photography in both cities was outstanding. Everyone did an excellent job of acting. The music was at time a bit heavy-handed or manipulative.

This story drags with some very slow patches showing a depressed lost girl wandering cities. But overall it was well done and poignant. Remember that it is just one woman's perspective, along with that of the film makers.

It might be interesting to see a series or film depicting a happy religious person who faces a moral dilemma and uses their faith to make a solid decision.

I loved this movie. I'm even ok with the lack of explanation for some of the technical details.

The footage of jets taking off and landing was spectacular. The storm sky was inventive and fun.

I loved the cast. James Farrentino is one of those guys you just can't help but root for.

The one problem was the lack of emotion from the entire crew regarding their predicament. People would be freaking out. But they weren't for the most part.

I love the twist at the end too. Very pleasing. Very little violence, no sex, and no profanity. That's fitting given Kirk Douglas as the star. Him being from an era before all that.

There is only one woman in the film. Katharine Ross is not your typical starlet. But she has a grace and appeal that can't be denied.

Good fun.

I could do without the silly flirtation. Please. How desperate is this main character? Or is it just a tactic of his? He has a brief assignment, encounters some stodgy, short-haired officer and tries to force some silly chemistry? That was obnoxious.

As were all of his silly, sarcastic one-liners, and cynical cheekiness. That was over-the-top.

As others have said, the number of plot twists exceeded an acceptable level. This movie was a mess. Meanwhile, how many movies do we need with Samuel L. Jackson playing an angry, vindictive guy?

I do not buy Travolta as an ex Army Ranger, even one who got kicked out. I just can't see it. He was miscast.

But I did enjoy the general hurricane-in-the-jungle atmosphere. That's about it.

Don't be surprised. Creative people often write about what they know. They don't know how to be a plumber in Northern Wisconsin. They know how to be woke, or and/or a secular, urban/suburban liberal professional. The conflicts and values the characters face will reflect who created them. It's only natural.

Having said, if you can't stand the above-mentioned type, you will not be able to stand this film. But it is actually realistic. Because these types do exist and would act the way these characters do.

Ben Stiller is great at playing the self-conscious beta male. His facial expressions and reactions to everyday scenarios are hilariously awkward.

Narration is so unoriginal and annoying. This movie uses both narration and conversation to convey the protagonist's thoughts and inner conflicts. That is better than narration with no confessional interactions.

Casting was excellent. I believed all the characters. Boston looked great too.

The movie shows the downside of the common leftist mistake of trying to be your teen's best friend. They will not respect you. This guy's son is dismissive of him and curses him whenever he feels the urge. That only prompts the dad to try even harder for the buddy relationship.

I totally believe the college girl presented here. She's been indoctrinated in the "colonialism" narrative which posits that white males are out of touch. She looked and sounded exactly how I would expect her to.

But the son character had one of the best insights in the movie, and I can see a kid his age instinctively realizing the truth of it. I didn't find it precocious. He reminds his dad that most people are busy thinking about themselves. So don't sweat minor embarrassments too much. They won't remember.

What is really bothering the Stiller character is not money. It is that he knows he is a beta male, and he can't change his nature. He cares too much about everything. Which is part of why he isn't more financially successful or more in control of his son. He's weak.

They did not do a good job of convincing us that the married couple was close. We see very little of their relationship before the big stuff happens. I don't think they told us what product the family company made. Why make them Jewish? They didn't sell the Jewish angle. I didn't believe it.

There is a large passage of time during which we see very little of what happens in people's lives. Was the grey beard meant as a disguise because the guy was planning to resurface, or just to show the passage of time? Couldn't he have trimmed it to look less homeless? As people mentioned, the women didn't look older.

I did feel the emotions of the main characters. That much was good. I was actually ok with the ending too. I know a lot of people hated it.

The kind of guy who let himself get into such debt, kept it from his family, and made the other decisions he made, would probably not know what to feel or do when facing the consequences of his actions. He waffled, caused more pain, and failed again.

Haha. The writer just couldn't resist. There are jabs at Fox News, the Death Penalty, the Bible, racist cops, corrupt police, pot arrests, and the law.

People are missing the point regarding the young boy and girl. It's not about whether they are annoying. It's about whether they are realistic, and I think they are.

There are many sensitive, artistic, beta-males who attract dominant girls and women. There are also precocious and petulant teenage girls who think they know some secret about life that makes them cooler than thou.

The gangster guy was very effective with his intensity, as was the female detective with hers.

The writers tried too hard to make the judge character so woke. He hit every politically correct base with a smugness that was hard to take. I don't doubt that such characters exist though.

The dialogue was the best thing. There were some very worthwhile conversations. I especially liked the main kid's mention of his mom's philosophy to "Go deep, not Wide." Meaning it's better to dig into your hometown and your existing relationships, rather than look to travel around and meet a bunch of new people.

There were plenty of decent qualities to this series. I only wish that the father character would have at some point screamed at his son to pull his head out of his rear and grow up.

Cool deer and boat effects. Good acting reaction by Ethan Hawke to woman in distress. The rest was mediocre at best, but I'll try to isolate some points.

It is definitely true that we bring ourselves to vacations and crises. You can't stop being yourself for very long. Even during crises, we get hungry, bored, sleepy, or frisky, and our natural proclivities continue to show.

The points made about distrusting strangers may be more pronounced in a huge diverse society. You probably shouldn't judge a country or its people (America) without context.

If you live in a small country where everyone is from the same background, looks alike and speaks alike, you are probably more likely to trust your neighbor. But not always.

I know that the Obamas helped produce this thing and that they have some complex self-hatred issues about America or capitalism, but if they were trying to make some profound point, they didn't execute well. Because I don't get it.

All I could fathom was that some people are shallow, some professions are predatory, America has made enemies, many people have racist suspicions just under the surface. We are too dependent on technology for general living and for entertainment.

But none of that amounts to much of a grand thesis.

The young woman's piercings and tattoos made it seem like her character was trying to repel people. Or maybe the actress really has those. I found it unappealing. Julia Roberts had on little or no makeup and is in her mid to late 50s, so don't expect the Mystic Pizza version of her.

Ethan Hawke's character seemed like a decent person, as did the homeowner. But the rest were not people you would root for. Not that you must like characters to find a film interesting.

Perhaps the main point was to tell us that cataclysm is always around the corner in today's world. So be prepared physically, emotionally, and practically. Life is short and precious. Make connections with people while you can.

The reason I called this a mess is because of the pacing, the plot holes, and the fake depth. It's slow, almost nothing happens. It's absurd that no one in Long Island, NY would be outdoors, and that no emergency services would be circulating. Meanwhile as mentioned, you will find it difficult to cull any profundity worth making a movie about.

I watched the entire first season. I consider myself to be of above-average intelligence, and I have virtually no idea what happened.

It seemed to be much to do about nothing. One story involves some teenage bullies chasing some kids in the woods. The other involves some overaged college students living as housemates in a mansion. I don't understand the connection. Since the woods-chase thing happened 21 years prior.

Our male protagonist has been through a lot of emotional pain. He has a dark outlook on life. The actor plays it as well as anyone could. He successfully instills a film noir mood to the story. That's what kept me in the game.

The female lead is oddly attractive and has a complex back story herself. I don't know what season it was, but the atmosphere is very grey and dreary.

But at the end of the day, one need be a good storyteller to gain my respect with a script, and this one didn't. It was too long, filled with flashbacks, and supposed intertwining that you'll find difficult to unpack.

There is no substitute for a good and well-told story.

There was plenty of potential to turn this into either an overly sentimental story, or a cheap laugh attempt. But the makers did not fall into those traps.

One may say that George Clooney often plays some variation of himself frequently. Be that as it may, the natural way he came across, including conveying genuine sadness when necessary, yet in keeping with the restraint of the character he played, was very impressive.

The characters went through satisfying and believable arcs, faced relatable dilemmas, and the actors weren't afraid to give fully of themselves.

Jason Bateman was perfection as the smarmy boss with a heart.

But the scene that made the picture for me, was when Clooney's character is called upon to convince someone else that a life of commitment and connection is worthwhile. Despite the choices he personally has made.

The female love interest played by Vera Farmiga annoyed me. But that means that the actress did her job well. Because she portrayed her character as detached from morality in such a convincing way.

I liked the set. It was creepy and interesting. The basic concept grabbed me too. But there were way too many unanswered questions and squandered potential. It was just too lazy.

People say that it was a commentary on mundane suburban life, but the life these people lead was nothing like real suburban life. In real life there are people and activities, friendship, love, commitment schools, and parties, and parades.

These people rarely if ever even theorize about their predicament. They never discuss the fact that their families, including parents would be worried about them. That their employers would be missing them.

I haven't read comments about the T. V., but it may have been a significant prop. Maybe we were supposed to see that the boy was glued to the T. V. and the programming was gibberish. Perhaps this was a commentary on how we lose our children to the tube and its influence.

Let's be honest. Jesse plays pretty much the same guy all the time. Himself. I had never seen the female lead before. She sold her character well. I bought her terror and misery.

There are potentially several explanations for what the makers were trying to say. Perhaps it's a commentary on the precariousness and randomness of life. You make one seemingly routine decision and walk into quicksand, through little or no fault of your own. But the result is that your life will never be the same. Or maybe they are saying that we are essentially alone. At any given moment, some force or entity stronger than ourselves can overtake us, manipulate us, destroy our lives and toss us aside as if we never existed. All of these explanations are of course deeply cynical or even nihilist, and in keeping with a new Hollywood mentality.

A child makes an early observation about how unfair and cruel life seems. A woman shows her connection to children. A man shows his indifference to the death of lesser creatures. Some of these themes come back around.

Irony and absurdity may play roles. As may digging as a metaphor. When you can't find a way out, you dig beneath. Or perhaps digging is a way of fighting entrapment. Or simply a form of useful work to pass the time and give one a sense of purpose and accomplishment.

I didn't hate it the way others did. Miles Teller is often an appealing lead. He makes you want to root for him. I found his character endearing.

There were also some good moments of reality and awakening. One employer who fires him to appease authorities tells him that he's sorry, but excrement runs downhill.

Meanwhile his father expresses outrage at his son's immaturity and gives him a wake-up call about the world of employment. Those were good scenes with smart dialog.

I don't know why film makers feel they need to push the envelope of good taste to the point of degrading vulgarity. Nor why well-known actors would agree to be part of a project that employs such tactics. I suppose they weren't as well known when this came out.

The film makes a commentary about the new generation of college graduates. That they are too focused on having fun and expect a job that will provide it. Hollywood makes films about people from their world of values. Religious or patriotic kids are likely to have a better approach to the work ethic.

Bryan Cranston was terrific. I bought his frustration and also found him hilarious. Anna Kendrick is always down to earth and solid. I could have done without the goofy friends.

Come on! I've watched a few episodes and still have not seen one moment in the classroom. It's like their profession is being a JUCO basketball player. There is no reference to them even being students.

Like I said in my review of the first football season of this series, why do they even need to attend college, if their only goal is to go pro? Just create a minor league.

Meanwhile their college is in an extremely Asian city, (Monterey Park), where everyone who is not Asian is Hispanic, yet these guys are neither.

We don't see any signs of that from crowd scenes. Because there is no coverage of cheerleaders or crowds. Or at least not so far. The culture clash would create an interesting angle. Viewers don't even realize who lives in that part of East L. A.

Another profile of shallow 20 year-olds who think they are God's gift to the world, but in reality are not even that good. Plus a coach with a Master's Degree who talks like he just stepped out of the hood. I don't buy that.

Although at least he's not playing to the camera the way other coaches did in previous seasons.

Let me see players recruited to a JUCO in Vermont or Montana, instead of the South or California. The Kansas football version was interesting.

When they play other teams, we see that everyone has a big man, and various talented players. Not just our profiled team. It's a fiercely competitive world. Even for pastry chefs.

I'd like to see a John Wooden type of coach some time. One who stressed fundamentals. Not dunks.

The opening still framing of a country villa while the credits roll with Hitchcokian music was effectively old--school and pleasing. I got excited for what might be something different than the usual Hollywood disappointment.

I actually believed Jason Segel as a slacker burglar. I did not believe Jesse Plemons as a tech. Billionaire. I think he was miscast. Nor can I picture Lily Collins as the foot-tattoo type.

Nice concept. Poorly executed. The pacing was way too slow, and the lack of character development was a crime itself. Don't make me sit through a full- length film and tell me virtually nothing about the three main characters.

I agree with other reviewers that it started like a Coen Brothers movie, then couldn't decide where to go from there. Switching from gentle dark comedy to menacing cynicism is a weird transition.

Let's be honest here. Almost every Hollywood movie tries to plug in some liberal coding. In this one, the Latino domestic help is characterized as earnest, industrious, and hard-working, while the rich white inventor is a nasty, condescending cynic.

Meanwhile we are supposed to root for the woman.

You will need to tell me more about the tension in this marriage for me to understand the actions taken. You have to work for your money. Write a thorough script. Not a bare-bones one. Come on man.

I appreciate the lack of blood and violence. Old movies would not show it, and for the most part this one didn't either.

The best concept here was one that appears in many stories, as well as real life. How some little mishap. Like tripping, can shape your future. I won't reveal beyond that.