Reviews

So yes, I get that this was a parody of a parody artist. I get that this was supposed to be a humorous film (yes, a couple parts were funny). But I had such a difficult time trying to envision Evan Rachel Wood as anyone even remotely resembling Madonna that it completely ruined the third act.

That said, the true hero of the film was Toby Huss. Probably one of the most underrated actors of this century, watching Huss at work was total joy, and he carried the first act almost by himself. He could have played the role of Alfey's father completely over the top (like so many others in this film did) but instead he immersed himself in the role and was absolutely believable. It was a great highlight to an otherwise blasé film.

Want more of Huss? Watch "Halt and Catch Fire." Truly an acting genius.

It only took 10 minutes before I just fast-forwarded to the end. Nothing great that hasn't been done in "Gravity," Kubrick's masterpiece, or any number of sci-fi films. The talking head woman was the worst: She pretty much ruined whatever little pacing this movie might have had. Everything about this movie seemed staged, fake and totally uninteresting. I'm pretty tolerant of most bad sci-fi but this was the worst. Stay far away.

I now know why I never even heard about this movie. Because no one could have possibly enjoyed it. The sterility of everything was just overpowering, the acting vapid and uninspiring. Not a movie I'd hold up as a shining example of the genre.

I'm not too sure what the critics were expecting, but yes, this film requires careful attention to detail (the cinematography and set designs are stellar) and yes, it does require a bit of science because, well, this is a movie about *science*! I no longer pay much attention to what critics have to say, and simply assume an inverse relationship between critics' ratings and quality.

If you're looking for a movie that explains science at a kid's level, this movie isn't for you. If you have trouble with movies that aren't completely linear (and require little thought), this movie isn't for you.

If you want a thoughtful biopic about one of the greatest scientific minds to have graced our existence, by all means enjoy!

Far better movies about "acceptance" than this tripe. Appears to have been written by undergrad film students. Don't waste your time with this contrived mess.

Summary: An ill-conceived and unnecessary epilogue to an otherwise stellar series. It's two hours better spent doing something else.

Don't know what was on Vince's mind with this one, maybe Netflix waving all that money around to boost their own subscriptions had done thing to do with it. Overextended to say the least, this movie could have simply been condensed into the series finale. It's a movie that certainly didn't need to be made.

Most of the main characters have aged since the series ended. It was rather distracting to remain focused on the story line while noticing how *old* everyone is, while reminding yourself that the action takes place *right at the end of the series.*

What a mess. Characters you don't care about (you thought Jar-Jar Binks was bad, try Rosa), heavy-handed direction ala Disney-style designed to wring every last morsel of fake over-the-top emotion, Laura Dern as the most unbelievable commander...this comedy ever seems to end. The only redeeming aspect were the special effects. In fact, you could turn the sound off, put on some Metallica, and miss absolutely nothing in the plot.

Steven Soderbergh's plodding, insipid direction and a host of characters you really can't sympathize this makes this movie one of the worst I've seen. Worst of all, the trailers are absolutely misleading: No one could have watched these and not expected a mix of "28 Days Later" with maybe a bit of "Resident Evil" thrown in. Instead, we're offered a classic case of bait and switch.

Soderbergh hasn't come out with a decent movie since "Traffic". What was he thinking here? Trademark Soderbergh directing abounds in this one: Long lingering shots that are confusing or that the viewer really doesn't care about (door locks anyone?). An incredibly interminable casino sequence where we get to watch a character played by Gwyneth Paltrow gamble. For long minutes. I mean, really? Soderbergh has this uncanny ability (shared with Woody Allen) to attract top stars to his films. Unlike Allen, Soderbergh's movies (save for the aforementioned "Traffic" and possibly "sex, lies, and videotape" are all fluff pieces, here and gone faster than you can say "It's not just lysine. It's citric. It's gluconate." What in the world was Matt Damon thinking when he took on this script? I forgave him for "The Informant!". But geez, since when do patients get bad news about the passing of a loved one in front of the patient registration desk? Damon is practically devoid of emotion throughout the movie, which I attribute not to Damon's acting ability (he's actually a brilliant actor in the right setting), but to Soderbergh's brain-dead directing. His character is simply one that's difficult to care about, as are most of the other characters.

I could go on an on about good actors wasted in a bad film: Kate Winslet handing a sick person her blanket off her own death bed (yeah, we get it: She's a person that thinks about others, but that's why she's a doctor)...Paltrow, so excellent in so many movies, reduced to an adulteress that has zero character development, yet we're expected to actually care for her...Laurence Fishburn, whose character is incredibly egocentric, looking out only for himself and those around him until Soderbergh figures out he should be imbued with a shred of compassion to tidy things up at the end. What in the world were you all thinking?

For the love of God, your loved ones, your friends, and most of all yourself: Skip this one. I am still kicking myself over changing my mind at the last minute to see this instead of "The Thing". What in the world was I thinking?