Reviews

Season one was OK. A Hallmark movie stretched out to a series. The acting was what you would expect of a Hallmark series. No chemistry between Mel and Jack and the storyline was just too contrived to be believable. Annette O'Toole is insufferable. How this young looking, handsome, kind doc could be in love with this crusty, nasty old biddy is just hard to swallow.

Season two brought in some nasty characters that gave the story teeth, but not enough to save this sleep inducing series.

Season three! The writers seemed to be suffering from Covid fatigue!!! There is really not much of a plot in season three. Annette O'Toole is absent for the season, (Thank God!) but the writers could have put in a little more effort to explain her absence. Visiting an aunt? Getting stuck in a tornado? Then an accident where she is conveniently not shown for the rest of the series. I think the pregnancy issue came up for Mel because the actress playing her is actually pregnant in real life. She looked like she could be pregnant from the first episode and I guessed pregnancy would be an issue before the season finale. I kept falling asleep.

Seems streaming services are desperate for product. And they are accepting whatever comes down the pipeline.

Connie Britton was painful to watch. She didn't speak above a whisper and had the same, dumb, blank expression in response to every event in her life, from falling in love, to discovering her husband was a dangerous con man. She allows a man she barely knows to speak to her daughters in an abusive manner and each time.... the same blank stare. I thought he was drugging her with all the morning smoothies, because I could couldn't come up with a better explanation for her irritating , nonchalance in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was a very dangerous con man. How could someone who had gone through four divorces and not have learned a thing about red flags is a mystery. Also her mother fights tooth and nail to keep her younger sister in a marriage she truly wants to leave, resulting in her death, yet doesn't seem to have a problem with her remaining daughter who has been married five times. No entertainment value in this series, I would be interested in the pod cast though.

After the last four years, while Americans had a President who did everything possible to divide the country along colour lines, at the start of a new Presidency, where the whole world is hoping for some healing for the United States, we get this series on Amazon. This is an important book , but I preferred Toni Morrison's depiction of the horrors of slavery in the Southern States to this one and the timing couldn't be worse.

I wish this worthy book had been adapted as a play. White supremacists aren't known to go to the theatre in droves, though we do know they spend a great deal of time online. Amazon is no exception. Instead I wish the series paid more homage to the actual cooperation that occured between the races in order for the Underground Railroad to exist.

According to Historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. In his research on the Myths of the Underground Railroad,

" The Underground Railroad and the abolition movement itself were perhaps the first instances in American history of a genuinely interracial coalition, and the role of the Quakers in its success cannot be gainsaid. It was, nevertheless, predominantly run by free Northern African Americans, especially in its earliest years, most notably the great Philadelphian William Still. He operated with the assistance of white abolitionists, many of whom were Quakers.

White and black activists such as Levi Coffin, Thomas Garrett, Calvin Fairbank, Charles Torrey, Harriet Tubman and Still were genuine heroes of the Underground Railroad. William Still himself, according to James Horton, recorded the rescue of 649 fugitives sheltered in Philadelphia, including 16 who arrived on one day alone, June 1, 1855, according to Blight."

Gates also noted that there is a belief among some Americans that an actual Railroad existed that ran from the South to the North, West and to Florida that was much like a " Grand Central" for escaping slaves. This series does nothing to correct that impression. And there are enough idiots around that will believe it because of this series. It should be noted that these idiots are not likely to be reading Pulitzer Prize winning books.

As to the timing, sadly, the series comes on the heels of the police officer who murdered George Floyd being convicted and sentenced. It is a time for a nation to heal. Instead people of colour are reminded once again, in scenes that would curdle your blood, of the atrocities suffered by their ancestors at the hands of white oppressors. This IS an important story. It DOES need to be told. But the timing of the series couldn't have been worse. Meanwhile, I can picture white supremacists licking their chops and yelling " Right on" to every filthy word spoken by the plantation bosses and especially that of the loathsome bounty hunter. And people of colour are reminded once again that no white person can be trusted.

The adaptation is true to the book. The cinematography is brilliant. And the director keeps the performances of the characters of the slaves, and former slaves subtle in their expression of emotion because of the depth of their trauma.

I had trouble relating to the fantasy aspect of the book re the existence of a real railroad underground, as I did in the series and the musical choices at the end of each episode were bizarrely upbeat considering what I had just watched.

There are many worthy books written on this subject. Read one. Skip this series.

So... Richard Gere goes full frontal nudity ( for a nanosecond) and yet there are no sex scenes in the movie. This Gigolo spends more time at dinner, shopping, and at political fundraisers than he does in the beds of his clients. We assume he does have sex with someone, but even his one bedroom scene with Lauren Hutton is a mishmash of vignettes comprising of Gere's character caressing her calf, and Hutton kissing his back. ( The inclusion of the horrendous looking birthmark didn't help.) There wasn't a scintilla of passion in this whole movie.

As to the plot, there was none that I could surmise. He's a gigolo that doesn't have much sex. He's arrogant, and seems to forget he doesn't belong to the economic strata of the ladies he services, rather he is a service. He also has a mother complex that is never explained. Not much is. He is framed for a murder, but we never find out by whom.

Lauren Hutton finally comes to his rescue with an alibi and visits him in jail to tell him. ( So, if he has an alibi, why is he still in jail? He has only been charged, he has not been convicted.) Then... the most idiotic line to end a movie is spoken. And it's done.

The acting is wooden, and only Gere when he starts to unravel turns in a passable performance. This is the only time the director shows up in any meaningful way.

Starts off with promise, Blondie's " Call Me" blasting from the speakers of a gorgeous black sports car. Unfortunately, it's all downhill from there.

Don't waste your time on this movie.

Season one: I fell asleep multiple times. A snooze fest. Season two: Made no sense. No detective would do the things Decective Harry does and gets away with. Season Three: Absolutely no plausible reasons why these main characters behave the way they do. In B Horror movies you want to scream to a character, " Don't go through that door." Similarly, in this series, every character does and says things that are completely out of the realm of reality. For example: the husband who has confessed to committing three murders, whom the wife has a protection order against, and is holding a ten year old boy captive, comes to the back door, (because it doesn't occur to a police department to have someone watching the BACK door!), comes right up to the back patio door and instead of immediately calling the police, the wife engages in a romantic hand to hand touch at the window, allowing him to disappear into the night and likely kill someone else. Again, my message to Netflix, "Who green lights these poorly written and poorly acted series?" Don't watch it! You will never get this time back. Learn to crochet or build a bird house. I am without words to describe the and acted by C grade actors . Not worth

It's impossible to fault any performance by Emma Thompson or Stanley Tucci, but the screenplay, written by the author of the book the film is based on, is short on plot and even shorter on character development . Emma Thompson's character, who anchors the film ,is a mishmash of contradictions with only tiny hints as to why she is like she is ,without any back story to explain it.

The parents of the boy, whose court case, is the basis of the film, only make a short appearance in the film and there is no development of these characters, no back story to their religious beliefs, or their reaction after the court case is decided against them. There was an opportunity to delve into their religious beliefs and how they could let their son die because of a religious edict. But these important characters are all but ignored.

The son, whose life is saved, appears in brief scenes, and the mixed emotions he feels and speaks of briefly in his writing to the judge are not explored but left to fade until he decides to take his own life by once again refusing to have a blood transfusion. Why he decides to do this, while rejecting both his parents and their religion is a mystery. Another opportunity missed.

As a family court judge, Emma Thompson's character is obviously overworked to the point of lunacy and she is shown to follow the law to the letter, without emotion. So it goes against character when, given a case that clearly states that a child's right to live is always upheld despite the religious beliefs of the parents or the child; the judge delays her decision in the case until she sees for herself how the child "feels" about this foregone decision.

This cold, unemotional judge takes the time out of her heavy caseload to visit a child in hospital and the scene ends with her singing a folk song with him. This visit has no bearing on her decision because of the laws governing The Children Act, yet she breaks out of her rational, unemotional character, once again contradicting what we know of her.

Her coldness even extends to her treatment of her clerk. Not apologising when she tips over a full tea tray when lunging for her phone when her husband calls. ( This same woman didn't care enough to talk about their marriage both before he left AND after he returned.) So it makes no sense that she is desperate to talk to him when he leaves.

She forms an unusual attachment with the boy after saving his life but will not break her professional code of conduct by entertaining any meaningful conversation with him after the case is over. Another contradiction. She FEELS something for this boy. This is illustrated in the film by the scene in Newcastle where he kisses her on the mouth, and she later confesses to a colleague, "I am afraid of myself."

She is cold and unemotional in her relationship with her husband yet falls apart when he leaves. Another contradiction. She asks her husband if he loves her despite her refusal to give him children, yet she smiles and stops working to watch a young mother on a train walk her baby up the aisle. Meanwhile, when two unidentified children show up at their house for an overnight stay, (no explanation of who they are) "Uncle Jack" treats them with love and affection and she doesn't bother to speak to them. However she does watch her husband playing with them and reading to them at night. She is so detached and unemotional that she doesn't even say goodnight to them. No explanation or backstory for this contraction in her character either.

Stanley Tucci's character, Jack, tells his wife she hasn't been in the marriage for years, but comes back to a woman who still won't engage in any conversation about their marriage let alone engage IN their marriage. Why? Again, no back story on Jack, no explanation. He has a brief affair, and returns to a celibate, empty marriage. He essentially lives alone. So there is no explanation as to why he loves this cold, unemotional woman. Any rational human being would leave.

The concert scene near the end is simply ridiculous. Emma Thompson's character is handed a paper by her clerk saying that the boy's leukemia has relapsed and he is expected to die that night. She responds by playing her concert pieces as planned, but with an emotion that is palpable enough that a close up of Jack's face shows that he knows something's wrong. She then gets to the end of the concert and, in what looks like a psychotic break, plays and sings the folk song she sang with Adam, the dying boy. Then, she jumps up and runs to his bedside, where she tries to convince him to live. But again, it doesn't affect her to the point where she stays with him until he dies. Instead, in a pure Narcissistic move, she goes home instead and reads his letters.

And finally, she goes to bed alone, her husband watching her sleep, (she's had a bad night after all), and wakes to thank him for watching her. Still no intimacy other than telling her husband the story of the boy, so he can absolve her, " Are you sure you will love me after?")

There is nothing to identify with or like about the character of the Judge. She is cold, unemotional, and everything she does, is for her own benefit. Even her attachment to the boy only benefits her, she gives nothing back to him. She lives for power and control.

Stanley Tucci's character, Jack, is powerless, long suffering, and unable or unwilling to improve his circumstances. His character lacks dignity. When I watched the last scene where he tells his wife he has been watching her sleep, when she wouldn't allow him in the bedroom the night before, I wanted to smack him, and say, " Wake up and grow a pair! This woman will never love you back! "

There is no moral here. There is no redemption for any of the characters. There are no legal or moral questions to grapple with. The writer missed so many opportunities to explore important topics. Religious rights vs. the rights of a child, narcissism and its effects on a spouse , the politics of a marriage and the dilemma of work vs. marital harmony. Don't look for any answers in this film. There aren't even any questions.

I have seen many reviews calling this film an intellectual tour de force but I see only lost opportunities and contradictions. The characters are so underdeveloped as to be one dimensional. I'm all for a cerebral film if it has a message, or leaves you with questions to ponder. But alas, this was not one of those films.

Given the material they had to work with, Emma Thompson and Stanley Tucci (who had far too little screen time) were a joy to watch. They both deserve Oscar nominations, however, because of the material, I don't think they will get them. I will sum up my experience of this film by quoting another reviewer.

It's a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it's short on laughs, not remotely uplifting and takes a while to mentally recover from!

I am a lifelong fan of Allen's work so I decided to give this movie a chance despite the bad reviews. I should have listened! This film is without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen! Even the character's names are unbelievable. I don't know how Allen managed to direct these wonderful actors to give such hideous performances. The main character, Gatsby, is a 20 year old college student, who speaks like a character out of a 1950's Turner Classic film. At 84, Woody couldn't play the main character himself, so he dressed Gatsby in his signature tweed jacket, affects him with a mumbling Allenesque speech pattern, and completes the transformation by adding an eighty year old's posture to the character's twenty something's frame. Jude Law's character's wife is cheating on him with a man whose name is out of a 1930's vaudeville act. In the scene where he catches her, he reacts like a character in an old Marx brothers' film. All the male characters are a version of Woody, and they have been directed to deliver their lines as if Woody himself is speaking them. Only Liev Schreiber is spared the Allen schtick but he is given so little to work with that his performance is lost in the God awful shuffle. The performances are wooden at best, cringe worthy at their worst. The cultural references coming out of the mouths of college age kids ( supposedly in today's timeline) belong to the eighty-four year old Allen's era and the talented Elle Fanning is just hard to watch. The film is misogynistic , and the plot is almost non existent. It was difficult to sit through to the end. If this is the best Allen has to offer, Woody, it's time to call it a day. Many actors don't like to watch their performances once a movie is finished; in this case, probably a good idea.