Reviews

Oh what could have been had the screenplay been believable! The cast of this series does as best of a job as they can with what Roger Ebert called the "idiot plot"- characters that can only exist in a world where they consistently ignore the obvious and act around it to extend out the plot. This series thrives on that. The Braddocks are given key pieces of information throughout the season and what do they do with it? Ignore the obvious and go for a "in case of emergency break glass" approach EVERY SINGLE TIME. I found myself utterly frustrated by it as they go barging around the town verbally accosting every single person in the town in a game of whack-a-mole. Very disappointing and I can't recommend The Watcher because of the maddening idiot plot.

This movie should be good... Cassavetes, Falk, Beatty, even a short appearance by M. Emmet Walsh.

NO. This movie is a pieced together time waster with long drawn out conversations in a room, in a diner or on the street. When these conversations happen, they are uninteresting and end in some frenetic action, and then go right back into another place and another drawn out conversation. It's like watching the same thing over and over again for the first 2/3 of the film. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could find this film that great. I feel cheated, to be honest.

I absolutely love comedies, especially The League, which had characters that you could relate to and situations where the dialogue would make you laugh so hard. This show has uninspired and awful characters that talk on and on and on without saying much that is funny. They also delight in using every single crude bodily fluids reference you can think of and it falls flat. Don't waste your time like I did!

There is a reason why the director, also the writer, didn't direct another feature film again- this movie was terrible. It is a true shame this movie bombs because the cast sounds stellar- Pitt, Gandolfini, Liotta, I mean what could go wrong?

The movie suffers from a completely bloated dialogue problem... everyone has to have something to say, and it usually involves 15 minutes of banter without much action. Usually when a film is heavy in dialogue there is suspense, meaningful conversations, emotion, something to keep the audience interested. Sadly, none of these elements were present in anything close to sufficient amounts. Even classic golden age cinema had audience investment when the story lacked action, but few will be invested. Don't waste your time on this film- you will be gravely disappointed.

It was not nice to see a third iteration of the original Shaft after the second one, particularly since the plot and dialogue is in no way representative of the original. Richard Roundtree's Shaft with the creative team of Silliphant and Parks, cuts a very sharp edge and lets the action speak for itself with a stellar soundtrack. This version merely puts "Shaft Jr." in your face and delivers a canned action movie experience. Just because a movie is "non PC" doesn't make it an instant classic like Trumpians here have stated. The original was extremely "non PC" but of course those who are hell bent on pushing a Trumpian agenda ignore that and use reviews to bash everyone which has absolutely nothing to do with the film. Now all of this makes me appreciate the Shaft Trilogy of the 70s FAR more. There are just no Richard Roundtree, Moses Gunn or Frank Findlay performances out there anymore...