teylay1

It's like watching the most conflicted, indecisive, neurotic human being manipulating the inner workings of a U. N. summit on Climate Change. Guaranteed nothing will get done, and the process will drive you insane with frustration. At some point, you begin to wonder if it's Stockholm syndrome, or if the main character is actually George Costanza. The efforts taken to display complete spinelessness, and naivety are only matched by the levels of Suspension of Disbelief one must employ to resist the urge to yell at the screen. If the cast of actors were not as good as they all are, I'd say this movie should have premiered in the $1 bin at your closest dollar store. Saving Grace is only the cast, and that's a lot of grace!

I love a good, CGI, adventure flick, and I'm a fan of the Rock! I can get past leaving Brendan Frazier out (begrudgingly), but Luis Guzman's character and the antics were impossible to sit through. It was buffoonish and harkens back to the bad old days of Hollywood and how they depicted brown people. I've seen this man (Luis) do better, and be better (Carlitos Way), so I was mightily disappointed. I'm not sure of who this is being marketed to, but their ability to suspend disbelief is far higher than mine. This was a let-down from the first movie, which I watch almost every time I see it on TV.

I'm betting of the the 'Angry Man' reviews are from people who were never true fans or students of Rod Serling's original. His was always current with the social, political, and economic conflicts of the day. Peele's rendition feels the same. If you lean too far right, you may not enjoy this series at all, along with clumsily falling over. Whether I agree with the positions of the show, I recognize Serling's influence. I wonder how the gatekeepers of the 60's felt about many of the episodes of the time. Nothing can replace or match the magic of the renowned playwright who created the vision, but the stories should continue to be told.