Reviews

You know what's special about Kobra Kai? It's not dark. It is (take a deep breath) normal. For once a show for normal people. I know, it's not supposed to be. We can't have that in the 21st century. No, it has to be dark, ugly, nihilistic and completely one-sidedly judgmental. It has to have absurd politics stuffed in at every turn. It has to cater to people who spend half their lives trying to figure out what they are, rather than what they can do.

But for those billions of us who live outside the bubble this show strikes a chord. I was not expecting to rate this very much. When I saw it pop up on Netflix I dismissed it as a nostalgia run and wasn't interested. But one day I took a punt and was met with the funnest show in years.

What makes this show is the amazing way they get the two worldviews rub up against each other and instead of making rash judgement, just show them as how things are. Both sides have to deal with each other because that's what you do in the real world. You find yourself sympathizing with one side, then the other. Both have their good and bad sides. They're dumb, arrogant and make mistakes, but they're not evil. There is evil, but he's the complete outsider who deceives his way into one side, but is obviously not one of them.

Talk about a refreshing breath of fresh air.

It took me a long time to begin watching this. I kept seeing it on Prime and ignored it because I have been so disappointed with modern cop shows that I didn't want to invest. But I was wrong. I took a punt and was rewarded with a superbly written, acted and directed cop series. I don't know if it can compare to great cop series of the past, but compared to the utter trash served up these days it is like I found a diamond in the dust.

Thing is, the plot of each series is not that different to plots of other cop shows, but it is so well written and acted that you buy into it. It shows that what really matters is not original plot so much as those terribly old fashioned things like writing, acting and directing. Who knew?

Series one is about a serial killer. Yeah, yeah you've seen it all before. But so well acted and written is each episode that I found myself being genuinely creeped out by the killer and totally buying the methodical approach of the protagonist in tracking him down. It's strange, almost like I'd forgotten what Hollywood could do. Makes me realize that most of what we see today is made by hacks, substituting actual writing, acting and direction skill with "look how clever I am" plots, oh so meaningful and serious nihilism and 100mph dialogue to, you know, show that I can write.

If you want to know what an epic movie is, watch this.

Richard Attenborough directs a cast of thousands. Literally. The scene with the 6th Airborne Division parachute drop was real not CGI. And it shows.

Made at a time when WW2 was still familiar to most people living, it fulfilled a role that is pretty rare these days. Telling a story of an operation gone wrong, but without going into emotions and feelings. Just a sort of historical reenactment. Movie was judged at the time by its spectacle rather than "deep philosophical implications of the horrors of war" (Trademark Certified). Based on that it's great. Pull out a pack of sugar reduced soy popcorn, unpack a can of low carb boutique beer flavored beverage and enjoy.

I remember the excitement, the anticipation, the mouthwatering drool when this series started all those years ago. How fresh and new it was. Them was the days them were...

Watching series 6 now is like watching a once great champ going for his 16th comeback. His mind's gone, he's 50lbs overweight, he can barely lift his arms but there he is in the ring taking swipes at thin air.

The writers have literally lost the plot. I mean literally. They had the plot but lost it on the back seat of the taxi on the way to the studio. So they called the HR department and asked them what to write about. So we get this pile of boring junk.

I realized things were serious when in the third episode I was yawning and wondering when the episode would end so I could go do the washing. Should have ended with Ragnar.

It is 9AD. Thusnelda, a Warrior Princess, foments a rebellion against the dastardly Romans who are occupying her land. We see the beautiful Thusnelda plan the stealing of a Roman eagle from the middle of a Roman military camp. Despite the usual inept males, they manage to pull it off. This leads to retribution by the dastardly Romans but not to worry. Thusnelda, Warrior Princess has it all in hand. She plans a trap for the Roman army and with the mostly inept help of some guy called Arminius defeats the Roman Army and saves Germany from occupation forever. The end.

I'm interested in period drama, especially the middle ages. I thought this Spanish language production would bring a different perspective to Hollywood. Well it did, sort of. But in all the wrong ways. A few minutes into episode one and I was shaking my head at the bad writing and acting. The actor playing El Cid, who historically must have had extraordinary charisma, displays no charisma at all. He's a joke. As is most of this show.

Scumbag politician (but I repeat myself) uses a naïve young man for his gratification. Once he tires of him the young man is discarded and so begins a saga that exposes the corruption of politics at its core. When they say politics is a dirty game they mean this.

Well written and acted, with Hugh Grant playing a cynical dirtbag who can switch on the charm as necessary. Also man does he look haggard; age has not been good to him. The evil is presented matter of factly, without accompanying dissonant music for example, such that you start to think this kind of thing may be normal. Maybe for these people it is.

After the first episode I felt like a hot shower, but I'll keep watching.

It really shows you where the Hollywood establishment is today when you see them vomit on this utterly beautiful gem. This is what Hollywood used to make, so long ago now. This is what those big white letters on the hillside invoke. Upon movies like this was the reputation of Hollywood made. Those in charge now can only exploit it with increasingly degenerate and inward referencing club moves. Are you in the Star Trek club or the Star Wars club? May you are real edgy coz you're in the vampire movie club.

It's worth noting that the greatest movies being made today are by the likes of Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood and other rejects of Hollywood. Movies for adults. Hollywood darlings are left to make yet another reboot of a reboot of something that was made twenty or thirty years ago. Because they're hacks. All the true talent has left Hollywood and it's reduced to making Macmovies for Macpeople.

A movie that takes you out of your nice comfortable couch and puts you in virtual hell. A reminder that while millions of people sit on their backsides all day wondering which flavor of coffee they're going to have for their morning break, or what flavor of pizza they're going to have while playing games, there are real people out there who go down miles into the earth with no guarantee they'll ever come out.

If you're the kind of guy who can come out of your cocoon for an hour and a half, maybe this movie is for you. If you're well into your nice safe little cocoon, then give it a miss.

Emmerich makes epic movies. Epic movies are not kitchen sink dramas, or police procedurals, or details on the minutiae of how to pick your toenails. They are meant to be LOUD and EXPLOSIVE.

This movie is loud and has lots of explosions. It is well put together, with a coherent plot based on actual events. If you want a good popcorn movie for Saturday night, this is it.

For those who want a plot and talking as well, it has that too. The plot is somewhat complex, such that a lot of people will not understand what's going on between the explosions. The reason is that real life is often more complex than fantasy, and as this movie is based on real events it has to be a little complex. I can see a lot of people going "Why are they talking? I want EXPLOSIONS!!"

It has its problems; the lead character is miscast. Sorry but he's just not convincing in the role and I didn't believe the story arc he was playing out. In fact, all the other actors do really well and that only serves to show him up. Also the CGI is apparent. As you watch planes dive and explosions happen, you keep thinking "CGI!". That's not good.

But that's nitpicking. Basically an enjoyable experience.

Hard to know what to make of this movie. It's slick, with good production values. It actually looks like a well-made music video. But there are too many elements to it which makes you cringe or shake your head in unbelief for it to work. In fact there are a parts of it which are just annoying. The young hipster girl internet reporter for one. Completely unbelievable. Unless this is a comedy movie, then yes it would work. But it's not a comedy move, as far as I can tell. Especially as the plot point is about a little girl being drowned live on camera while buried underground. No that's not very funny is it? So we have a nightmare scenario with comedy elements, annoying characters and frankly, just stupid scenes like the hero repeatedly outrunning machine gun bullets.

Two days after watching this I decided to write a review, and it took me a while to remember anything about it. It's that forgettable.

The good; it's a commentary on the immorality of the media, mainstream and social. It's slickly done. Elements of it are fun and would have made a good comedy movie.

The bad; totally forgettable, unbelievable and annoying.

The ugly; portraying a little girl being drowned. Seriously, can you Hollywood b****s talk to your psychoanalysts about something called basic decency?

Wonderful effort by famed director Peter Jackson, of Lord of the Rings fame, to put together the existing footage of WW1, together with narrations from troopers who fought, to bring to life the realities of the trenches. The soundscape with continuously booming artillery was ominous and gave a sense of what it was like.

One thing I really liked about this doco-movie was the discarding of modern political correctness to show that the troops of WW1 actually believed in what they were doing, were tough and ruthless in their fighting and had no qualms about killing the enemy. Completely opposite to what people today so want to believe and so desperately try to impose on the past. Those guys were different, and I'm glad Jackson chose to show them as they were. If you prefer to impose "modern" sensibilities on the past, you probably won't like this.

Where do I start with the stupid reviews? Guys, chill, this is a sequel to the 1966 movie One Million Years B.C., where Raquel Welch battled dinosaurs. Here we have giant Moa birds and mammoths. One Million Years B.C. wasn't meant to be taken seriously, and no doubt the 60's audience had a lot of fun watching it. But today, in these oh so serious times when everybody has to deconstruct everything all the time from their mom's basement, we get long diatribes about how pyramids weren't built in 10,000 BC and the color of the sand in the desert was wrong or something.

This movie is good, clean, mindless fun. That's all.

Judging from the reviews, you'll either love this or hate it. So you just have to figure out which box you'll fit into. I am not a Rambo movie fan, this was just something to watch on a Saturday night. But in the end I liked this movie, even though for me it was not a pleasant watch.

It's not slick, choreographed, spectacular or witty. It's ugly, dirty, muddy and bloody. It's more like going down into the sewer for a couple of hours. You don't enjoy it, but you learn a thing or two about the underworld.

Stallone has nothing witty to say, in fact he says very little. The movie starts off slow, serene, but you just know it's not going to end that way. It's a movie about the extremely unfashionable subject of human trafficking. Stallone is menacing in a way few actors can portray, which they cover up with slickness and glibness. Stallone is not slick or glib, he's just an ugly force in an ugly world.

Released in 2014, only 6 years ago but I can't imagine this movie being made today. The sheer amount of testosterone would send millions into hiding in their mom's basement. I saw it back then and loved it, saw it again recently and still love it. It really does capture James Hunt and Nikki Lauda uncannily. It was the (pre-AIDS) 70's when girls, alcohol and a little danger was what every young man aspired to, and Hunt provided the example for all. Lauda was of a different order, the taciturn Austrian who was the exact opposite of Hunt.

You could not imagine someone like Hunt getting a drive in a modern day Formula 1 team. "My name's Hunt, rhymes with **** " nearly had me off the chair laughing. Today's drivers are more like car managers and driving is more like going to the office. Hunt, for all his charisma, was the last of a breed. Lauda said that to win a world championship you need to be methodical and consistent. Hunt put a lie to that. But today's world is Lauda's and there is no room for a Hunt.

You know, I'd rather live in a world full of Hunts than Laudas.

Bemused at the reviews of "boring" or "too long". This is not Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, and is not meant to be. It is a character study based on a book James R Hansen which is a biography of Neil Armstrong, rather than a story of the moon landing per se. Of course the movie is going to show the moon landing, and the events which lead up to it, but these are just part of what the movie is about.

We see how hard it is to be a test pilot then astronaut. The launches and flights are seen from Neil's perspective, his visceral experience of being on top of a missile smashing into space. These scenes are not spectacular, in the Apollo 13 sense, but dark, claustrophobic, noisy and confusing, like it really was. A lot of people who perhaps were brought up on super-hero Hollywood movies cannot seem to relate to the portrayal an actual human being matter of factly doing things which are so far beyond normal. So we have the usual morons complaining about the fact that Armstrong doesn't smile enough or have anything witty to say while he is fighting for his life, you know, like they do in the movies. This level of immature stupidity is beyond my ken, so I'll just say just don't watch it. Keep to Star trek or Iron Man or whatever.

If you do appreciate what real people do in real life, warts and all, you will hopefully appreciate this starkly dry portrayal of a man who has all the flaws of you and me, but who also just happens to repeatedly face life threatening situations and find solutions to them on the fly. Armstrong is shown as an introverted man of few words and not particular friendly. But he has extraordinary coolness under extreme pressure. That's why he was chosen as the first man.

On a philosophical side note, it is not unusual for a truly great man of history to be reviled by the ankle biters of his day. There are whole industries of historians who specialize in trying to bring down the great to their own wormlike size, and I have no doubt this is or will happen to Armstrong. But unlike pretty much everyone living today, his name will be known a thousand years from now.

The movie portrays a real marriage, so unlike what is normal in Hollywood that it seems to be a shock to a lot of people. Maybe they don't have wives, I don't know. I certainly could relate to one or two exchanges between Neil and his wife Janet. Clare Foy portrays her as a sweet but strong woman. What it would have been like for her to hear her husband on the intercom say "We're in trouble" I don't know.

This movie is almost fly on the wall documentary when it comes to the rocket scenes, and kitchen sink stage drama when it comes to the personal stuff. I'm not a fan of Ryan Gosling, but he is convincing here. He really does a great portrayal of Neil Armstrong.

I barely made it through the first episode. I won't be watching the rest. I am a fan of historical shows and was looking forward to this one. But this is just trash. I would rather shows like this were not made than trash like this served up. No attempt has been made to any kind of authenticity; aside from period costumes and mud, this could be set in modern LA or NY. But worse, even if you accept that it is simply modern soap in costumes, the plot and characters are just unbelievable. Literally cardboard cutout boo-hiss characters and pretty women being oppressed.

I'm sure the writers did not intend it but all I saw were modern people in dress-up with put on accents and otherwise behaving like modern Hollywood types.

This show is not as advertised. It is not a historical drama, it is a modern poorly written and unbelievable soap opera with costumes and mud. It's not to be taken seriously, best only for daytime TV methinks.

It is the late 4th century. The (Western) Roman Empire is on its last legs. Forces both without and within are tearing at its foundations, not least the religious beliefs which held its moral sway over Roman civilization down the centuries. As in a doomed ship those who remain fight increasingly viciously for the spoils. Amidst this turmoil is someone distinctly out of place. Naively unaware of what's happening around her a philosopher, Hypatia, continues teaching the old learning brought down thought the centuries from Plato and Aristotle. She is apolitical, innocent, naïve. At first this works for her as the various factions fighting each other either ignore her or treat her as someone above the fray. But in the end it proves to be her downfall as she naively continues to pretend that nothing will happen to her. We know almost nothing of the real Hypatia of the 4th century, so almost all of what is portrayed in this movie is made up. It's unlikely she came up with Kepler's theorem over a thousand years before Kepler, but it's a lovely scene nevertheless in a well written and plausible plot. The makers have chosen to highlight the politico-religious factionalism which struck Alexandria at this time, really a fight for what would remain of the Roman Empire between the old guys (Pagans), the new guys (Christians) and the guys in the middle (Jews). Amenabar has to be commended on the subtlety of the story. He could have gone with the standard Hollywood trope of Christians bad anyone else good. But he managed to mostly to resist this, showing how Christianity was so appealing to the slaves and the poor, who previously were treated with brutality and contempt by Roman society. In a sense, Christianity empowered the previously powerless. The so called mob attacks of the raggedly looking Christians can be seen as the revenge of the newly empowered underclass on those who previously tormented them. Of course a lot of this will go above the heads of most viewers, as Amenabar skillfully caters to the more Hollywood aspects of moviemaking with the usual scenes of fighting, violence etc. Hypatia is beautifully portrayed by Weiss, and the acting and production values overall are fantastic. Just a superbly made movie with a number of levels, at least one catering to your particular prejudice and taste.

I didn't expect to like this little gem, but I ended up really enjoying myself. This is what indie movies were always about, showing quirky little stories on a limited budget outside of the Hollywood behemoth. Here we see a glimpse into 2 legendary characters, played brilliantly by Shannon and Spacey. Shannon doesn't play an Elvis impersonator, but brings out a depth to his role which no impersonator can equal. The same for Spacey, who doesn't look anything like Nixon but you believe it's Nixon because Spacey does a fantastic job of getting to something deeper.

I was a little confused seeing a slightly strange Tom Hanks playing a minor role, but then realized it was his son Colin. I love the way Elvis is shown as seriously he coolest guy that ever lived. People fall over themselves trying to help him everywhere he goes. Girls swoon, men turn into dribbling lackeys. Elvis, perfectly aware of the impact he has doesn't abuse people but keeps his cool, always playing the role people want to see. It's what celebrities used to be like.

Utterly engaging edge of your seat stuff. Based on the book by the very operators being portrayed in the movie, it shows the buildup and attack leading to the tragic killing of a US ambassador and his bodyguards during a massive insurgency in Libya. It also shows the extraordinary bravery and skill of the secret soldiers who were there mainly to provide security and not to engage in a massive battle.

All the way through the movie I kept asking myself "so when's the cavalry coming?" But the cavalry never came, due to sheer incompetence or sheer indifference by the higher-ups.

Is it possible that an army of insurgents can build up without anyone in US intelligence knowing? Is it possible that the insurgent army can then attack an embassy compound and no help come at all? The movie deliberately makes no judgement and leaves it up to the viewer to decide.

It's an interesting illustration of our times that when these guys returned to the US, far from being lauded as heroes they were either ignored or vilified by the media. The death of a US ambassador had to be blamed on someone and it was not going to be the politicians and generals who were in charge but the nobodies who tried and failed to save him. My hat goes off to them, however, and the politicians, media and their supporters can shove it.

Seasons 1 to 3 got better and better. But from season 4 onwards things went steadily downhill. Not by coincidence that GoT came into its own around season 4 and I think this has negatively influenced Vikings. Whereas seasons 1-3 were mostly believable, by season 4 we have the usual Hollywood bs of warrior women fighting multiple men twice their size with ease and GoT style backstabbing power plays. Funnily enough, by the time of season 5 I stopped caring about the Vikings and started rooting for the English.

I wonder how long this series is going to go, we're still in the late 9th century in season 5 but the Viking age ended in the 11th century, so another 200 years of history still to be told. Although I doubt it will happen, it would be fascinating to see the Viking discovery of America and the settlement in Newfoundland. Vikings on the Volga? Viking Imperial Guards in Constantinople? A follow up series on the Normans (descendants of Vikings) would be equally if not more fascinating.

A fun little movie that doesn't take itself too seriously. You've seen the plot a thousand times so I won't repeat it here. The acting and script are OK, but the main thing is the feel factor. It's a nice feel good movie and will leave you feeling good, which is its job.

I liked the casual treatment of Christianity here, wish more movies were like this where it's not the elephant in the room, just a background plot point. Actually thinking about it, it's a normal movie about normal people doing normal things. It's nice to watch a movie where you don't feel a little dirty afterwards. How refreshing.

Watching this, without preconceptions, it struck me that there was something beautiful about this movie, though I couldn't figure it out. It was only afterwards that I realised it was the interaction between the three protagonists. It turns out, I found out afterwards, that these were not professional actors but the actual people replaying what they had done in real life. The interaction, indeed love, they showed towards each other on screen was real, not acted, and that is something no actor however great will ever be able to portray. I have a feeling that Clint Eastwood, the director, decided to go with the original rather than have professionals when he saw this. I don't know but I'm guessing this is the case.

So what we have here is not the usual Hollywood movie, which is a problem for some, but truly refreshing for me.

If this was a Hollywood movie you'd have three charismatic action hero types riffing of each other as the beat up the bad guys. You'd have a backstory that involved drugs and alcohol and all the usual stuff we've seen ad nauseum. You'd have half the movie about the terrorist and how he was driven to kill by the injustice of the West. Instead what you have here is three relatively normal guys, with all their flaws, which we all have, who in every way are as boring as you and me, but who unlike 99% of us when the call came, ran towards danger and not away from it.

I like the direction Clint Eastwood has taken in the last few years. He's in that enviable position where he doesn't have to care what the establishment thinks. He is a master movie maker who is now making movies about the small people, the ones that the establishment deplores. This movie, The Mule, Sully and the impending Richard Jewell speak to us normal people in a way no superhero or gangsta or Star Wars: The Prequel To The Sequel Part 54 that Hollywood is putting out ever will.

I've stopped going to the cinema in the last few years. But if more movies were like this, I might well go back.

What? A movie that isn't cynical, woke, nihilistic? And it's not about a superhero but a real hero? How did this one get out? All the time I was watching this I was waiting for the inevitable. You know, the scene where the tiny little girl beats up four big cowboys at the bar. I was astounded at the scenes where they made the father the sympathetic character and the mother the awful one. Like I said, just how did this get through the censors? Look, I know it's based on a real life story of the Make A Wish Foundation guy, but couldn't they throw in a lnbgtqi2+- character or five? Couldn't they change the gender of the hero guy? And what's this about policemen being compassionate and human?

I don't know how the producers got this one through but I give them 8 stars for it.

Much of the footage seems to be from movies made after the war. The colorization is poor. They use footage when describing events that are clearly not from those events. The episodes are otherwise OK until the last few when things got a bit strange.

When watching the episode on Dresden, I got the distinct impression that I was supposed to feel sorry for the Germans. You know, the same people who were slaughtering innocent millions in a place called Auschwitz, a day's train ride to the East of Dresden. I had a strange feeling that I was being manipulated. Also, if they are devoting a whole episode to the allied bombing of Dresden, then they must be devoting at least another 10 episodes to all the atrocities committed by the Germans right? I have a feeling that when allied soldiers walked into one of the hundreds of slave labour and death camps, they weren't feeling very sorry about Dresden. Just my feeling.

And about the episode on the Holocaust. Amid horrific images of massed dead bodies one of the guest speakers was trying to link it with modern politics. And he wasn't talking about ISIS. Another speaker mentioned Senator Joseph McCarthy when talking about why the Americans didn't come to the rescue during the Holocaust. Apparently he was blocking investigations into Nazi atrocities during the war. This struck me as odd so I looked it up. McCarthy didn't become a senator until 1946! In fact he was fighting in the Pacific during the war. This falsehood is so egregious but was stated matter of factly. These are supposed to be historians?

The greatest series on WW2 is still "The World at War", made in the 1970's. It has interviews with people who were there. Go watch that instead.