Before I started watching this movie, I had high expectations. Reviews and friends told me to expect a real science fiction movie. I've been longing for a real sci-fi flick since "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Contact" and "Sunshine". I know people nowadays are calling fiction and fantasy movies sci-fi, but I rather tend to draw a dinstinctive line and emphasize on the word "science".
That being said, the plot is simple, but at the same time realistic. The movie tells the story of humans trying to survive in an utterly inhabitable place - space. It's a movie that will remind kids (and adults alike), spoiled by the strange education they receive through contemporary media, that not everything can be achieved by wishful thinking. Humans are not made for living in space. Every step off earth is a step defying nature. Is that bad or good? That's a decision everyone has to make for himself.
The visuals are stunning. I watched it in 2D and I plan on watching it again in 3D. The spectator has the feeling to actually be there.
At least as important though is the sound. Many filmmakers make the mistake of having sound in space. Of course that's totally ridiculous. The only sound there is, is the sound that's created inside of your space-suit or space-station by the shockwaves that hit it. Throughout the movie I had the feeling they got it right. And actually it didn't make the movie "empty", but quite the opposite, more tense. It intensified the feeling of "this is not a place where I belong".
There was one scene though, I thought wasn't right. When Bullock holds on to Clooney, Clooney should already have the same trajectory as Bullock or the station or he should bounce back. I just don't get what's still pulling him. I think it is a mistake in the movie and a serious one at that.
Anyway, I can overlook that, since the rest of the movie is very good. On IMDB it has a rating of 8.2 right now. I'd give it more like a 7.8. Maybe even less. I guess the rating is a bit high, because for young viewers it is a new experience to see something realistic on the screen.
Should you watch it? Yes, definitely. Should you rewatch it? Maybe, for the CGI and if you haven't seen it in 3D. Certainly not for the story.
Pretty disappointing and crappy movie.
I suspected a casual and fun movie with this one, maybe with some puzzles and an interesting premise. However the movie disappointed from the start.
For a adaptation from a book I sure hope this was a bad one. You get thrown into the middle of a stoy where suddenly all kinds of stuff happens. I hope this wasn't the case in the original work, because it is one of the major flaws of this movie, and could be explained as the cause of many of its other faults.
The acting was luckily pretty ok, but many of the characters don't add to the story at all and are just filling up empty screen. The sound was to cry off as well. Soundtrack was ok, but many scenes had no music and felt like a soap because of it.
I am all for being creative with sound, but this was just done badly.
Since I won't bore you with pages of irrelevant texts, like the movie does, i will just make a list of the cons and pros.
Cons:
- Paced way too fast
- No build up for a climax (the film was more of a constant climax actually)
- Not getting time to get acquainted with the characters, therefore not caring about there faith.
- Very little character development, except maybe for Gally (Will Poulter)
- Stating many things as impossible without many explanation
- Revealing the endgame in the first act of the movie with a flashback/memory which makes the whole movie unnecessary,
- Also making the whole story as predictable as a Japanese train schedule.
- Inappropriate absent of sound
- Too much unimportant characters
- Did we really need another Hunger Games movie?
- etc.
Pros:
- Nice environment
- Funny but cool looking cyborg creatures
- Doesn't need many attention to follow, so you can check your twitter or facebook feed in the meantime.
For an action/adventure/sci-fi flick, this was great. For a comic book adaptation? Decent. For a chapter in the MCU that, like the other projects, is supposed to connect everything? Average at best, if I'm both critical and 100% truthful. Whedon's culture erasure of the Maximoffs aside—and let's also push aside the in-your-face, out-of-the-blue Bruce and Natasha angle for the sake of a less nitpicky review—Age of Ultron was an... enjoyable film.
The action sequences and CGI were, as to be expected, Marvel-ous. Pun absolutely intended. (What I appreciated most of all about them was the emphasis on saving the civilians.) The banter was fun, despite the film's attempt at comedy feeling a bit stale and forced at times. The overall plot and tone of the movie were not as stellar as I had originally hoped, but they were still decent. Don't let my picking apart of the movie fool you, though; I DID like it. For the most part.
I think my only real problem with the movie is that the experience of watching it can only be described as seeing a canon divergence fanfic come to life on the big screen. I love fanfiction. I do. Just as much, I love the canon divergence spectrum of alternate universes in the world of fanfiction. I just think it doesn't belong on the big screen. Whedon isn't a big fan of Bucky, I'm aware of that much, but it doesn't excuse ignoring a large chunk of what happened in The Winter Soldier.
Oh well, right? Not much to be done about it. And it does pave the way for Civil War, so I suppose that IS a plus, all things considered.
In short: A isn't just for Avengers, it's for average.
The 3h sit was a long one. Even though it wasn't the movie I was expecting it did not feel like a waste of time at all.
Even with a 3h film, there are still questions left to be answered. The movies maintains a slow pace overall, but fast forwards a few times to not make the movie too boring. This results in some characters getting rushed out of the story, and some not having much impact. The ending is implied as well, but I am very happy with it and wouldn't suggest changing it. It is most of all a coming of age story with some slice-of-life elements, and it is way too easy to fall for the clichés hiding in those genres. And they hardly did.
They could've sacrificed some unnecessary (long) scenes, but I doubt it would be the same film without them. It gives the movie a unique pace in which you don't really want them to hury up with the story, and just 'live in the now' with Adele (not particularly refering to the sex scenes.)
Besides the long and graphic sex scenes, which this movie will probably and sadly be most rememberd for, there are a multitude of shots and transitions that really hit me. The acting is of a very high quality too. They even threw in a lot of philosophy but were smart to make the main character not care for it (or understand it.) This prevents a pretentiousness without losing such material.
After all a very intriguing movie.
9.5/10. There are times when I feel jaded as a viewer. When it seems like despite the breadth of films out there, that I know most of the tricks, to where while I can appreciate a film's achievements in sort of a detached way, when I can even be engaged and invested in something, it doesn't necessarily reach me in the way that movies did when I first started watching them. The scope of appreciation has widened, but the emotional resonance feels muted, because I can't help but see the strings.
And then a film like Room comes along.
And Jack sees the expanse of sky for the first time. And Joy hugs her parents after not seeing them for seven years. And Robert can't even look at his grandson. And Nancy tells her daughter that she's not the only one whose life was destroyed. And Joy tells her mother that if she hadn't been taught to be nice, she might never have gone with Nick. And there's a supreme, heartbreaking look of guilt on her face when a reporter asks if she should have given her son up while in captivity. And Jack walks in on his mother's suicide attempt. And Nancy hears her grandson say "I love you." And Jack sees a real live dog, and makes a real live friend, and cuts his hair to give his mother his strength.
And I wince and I laugh and I cry and I gasp at this beautiful, devastating, intimate, life-affirming film. This is why we make movies. I love popcorn films, with the fights and flashes and epic feel, and I love the big dramas, with their scope and their sense of grandness and the talent on display, and I love those classic film comedies that mix the absurd and the irreverent and the memorable into a single hilarious package. But the films like Room simultaneously so small and so personal, yet so powerful and affecting, have a special place. These are, as Robert Ebert once put it, the empathy machine that is film working at peak efficiency, taking us into the lives of people who have suffered and been unfathomably wronged, and carries us with them as they carve out a way forward.
I didn't know I wanted a film that feels like a cross between Oldboy, Life Is Beautiful, and Boyhood, and yet the elements Room shares with each--the sense of isolation, the loving way in which a parent tries to distract their child from a continuing tragedy, the slice-of-life, impressionistic depiction of a young boy's innocence--come together to form something absolutely tremendous.
That last facet of the film, the fact that it filters the entire experience through young Jack's eyes, is a stroke of brilliance. There's a matter of factness, a certain directness or even blitheness to the way children experience the world. Using Jack as the lens through which Room tells its story renders those events not only realer, but plainer, imbuing them with the unvarnished perception of childhood. The way the film is able to get into Jack's head, to allow the audience to view these horrors and steps to recovery through his eyes, is its greatest strength and most impressive achievement.
By the same token, Brie Larson as Joy deserves all the accolades she's received for her performance here. While still a prisoner, she carries herself with such an air of both utter resignation and quiet resolve, someone who's been beaten into submission but carries on with whatever she has left. And once she returns home, the guilt that consumes her, the anger that she has for the world that kept turning without her, are palpable in every moment without fading into overwroughtness.
The film can essentially be divided into those two halves. The first is the story of Jack and Joy in Room, of the way that Joy makes unbearable circumstances livable for her son, the way that she copes and shields Jack from the horror around him, and how Jack strains and struggles to understand the idea of the world beyond those four walls, to where he can, eventually, help the two of them escape. The second half is far less intense, but still endlessly intriguing and affecting. It's a quiet domestic story about how people recover from that sort of trauma, both Joy who feels the opposite of survivor's guilt and second guesses herself, and Jack who is exposed to a big scary world, the depth and breadth of which is entirely alien to him.
But throughout both halves, there is such a pure emotional truth in each moment, from the simple joys that Jack enjoys within the home he doesn't realize is a prison, to his anger and resistance at having that fantasy shattered, to Joy's dispirited but resolute attempts to keep him happy and healthy, to the realistic, painful difficulties parents and children face when rebuilding a family seven years after a tragedy, to the wonder and fear a small boy has for what lies beyond the garden gate, and the unmitigated joy at every step taken toward some cobbled-together normalcy. Room is a beautiful, heart-wrenching, intensely personal film, that takes an unflinching yet uplifting look at how people cope and come back from the worst that our world has to offer.
A complete waste of time.
If you are a comics fan, and for some reason you still haven't seen this one, save a few hours of your life and pick another movie.
In the other hand if you are not a comic fan, but still want to see a nice superhero movie, check out the ones made by Christopher Reeve almost 40 years ago, you wont be disappointed with those.
This movie has an impressive cast, that's the only reason why I seen it completely, I think for respect of them, but i was so close to stop watching it, and be the first one in my life i did not finish, that's how bad it is.
The options were endless for a superman movie, and even more considering this is supposed to be a dark superman, for me he is more like a reckless one, but they decided to put a ton of super mega FX, which are not convincing at all, and have two semi-gods destroying JUST one city while battling with their superpowers and dont have an scratch in their faces or they immaculate customs.
Lois Lane appears in every single moment with the correct answer or with a brilliant idea of how to stop the bad guys or to be requested in the presence of the powerful entities that came to conquer the world and exterminate the human race to create a new Kripton, but yeah, she needs to be there.
I cannot continue the critiques because I would need to start spoiling the movie and that's something I dont like to do, but i did advice it on the beginning of my review, if you still decide to see this awful movie is on your own mental health risk.
I really hope that Superman vs Batman: Dawn of Justice is not as bad as this one is.
One of the earlier film that started cyberpunk genre in Hollywood cinemas. Considering the time it is made, the panorama of cyberpunk L.A. is impressive - it doesn't look old/fake, and you can see the way it influences the depiction of "high tech, low life" setting in later years, with tall and dark skyscrapers looming over the meagers' life of its citizens, police almost omnipresence appearing instantly as if they had eyes everywhere in the city. In the same time it is also indeed a film of its age: with ceiling fans, analogue devices, and low-res screens contrasting with its futuristic setting. Still, it is understandable how the atmosphere alone can leave a remarkable footprint on modern cinema.
However, the movie suffers from a terrible pacing. It is inconsistently slow, with ups and downs in a very sharp turns. There are moments you wished the movie can explore more, especially on exploring the fantastic atmosphere and the existential crisis of the Replicants. Meanwhile, there are other moments that you wished could've been cut short. For being a neo-noir thriller the movie hits the spot in maintaining its dark, mysterious atmosphere, but misses a lot in keeping the thrill high.
The final confrontation especially leaves a lot to be desired - as Deckard (the main character) just ran mindlessly, or, borrowing Roy's (the antagonist) line, just "being irrational", until the climax of the film. Which, again, leaves a gaping hole. The movie presents us the existential problem, the supposedly main theme of the movie, right there at Roy's dialogue. But minutes later after the monumental speech, the credits already rolled.
It's still a cult classic though. The setting was great. Worthy to be watched at least once.
I came to watch this movie with high expectations - hearing about all its nominations and seeing all the positive feedback. It disappointed me. Very big time.
Most of the scenes and dialogues in the first hour didn't make any sense. The two guys developed feelings from nothing, they barely even encountered or hung out with each other - let alone did something memorable that would lead to catching feelings for one another.
Like how other people commented here, the supporting characters had absolutely no role in the storyline, hell, maybe even the parents had unnecessary roles. But the most disappointing fact is that even the two main characters had no depth, no logical thoughts and actions. I get that Elio is supposed to be a 17-year-old, but even a teenager hasn't got that much random stuff going on in their head and in their actions as he does.
The sad thing is that the actors had a great chemistry but this storyline and these dialogues just stomped all that built-up passion into the ground. Like WTF was that scene with penetrating that poor peach?! Or that one where the movie got its title from? Why would you ask your loved (in this case, "loved") one to call you by their own name instead of yours? That's just f*cked up...
There were only 3 things I liked about this movie: the BGMs, the scenery and the penultimate scene when the father gives all that smart advice to Elio. This story had so much potential, but I guess people who read the book were right - this movie totally ruined it. I should've just read the book.
A bad attempt on what could have been an unforgettable summer love story. "Call Me by Your Name" fails in every aspect of It. It's dull, empty and forced.
From beginning to end there's no exploration of any kind. The characters don't have the depth they should have which makes the love story lacking dynamism and vivacity.
The first part of the movie is tedious and uninteresting. An hour of unnecessary scenes, that could easily be cut out, with brief dialogs of direct questions/answers, without emotions or sensibility from any character. A missed opportunity to invest in the character denseness and build their relationship. The movie doesn't give enough space for the sensations and attraction between them to evolve and, with that, we end up not caring, at all, with their bonding. All we see is a shallow relationship based, purely, in sexual encounters.
Less is more so it would have been great to see that. Less scenes, less scenarios and less dull actions and conversations. It's a movie that should concentrate merely in the connection between them and not on how beautiful the background is or how kind and aware Elio's parents are. The minor characters are completely pointless and don't bring absolutely nothing to the film.
The only positive aspect is Timothée Chalamat, In the second part of the film. He really pushes Elio's character and ends up with a very solid and strong performance. The ending shot was absolutely breathtaking. Apart from Timothée's acting, Sufjan Stevens enhanced this scene with "Mistery of Love", making one of the best ending scenes of the year. Undeniably, he deserves to win Best Original Song at the 90th Academy Awards.
Cathartic as hell. Bravo. There's an underlying jubilee in the filmmaking on display in this episode that really allows the audience to fly off the rails with glee. And that's truly accomplished stuff.
But I do have a minor gripe with one piece of the writing here. I am more and more uneasy with the show's characters' unwillingness to acknowledge Darlene as a power player in the game of chess that's been going on since episode one. When in reality she's been in on the ground more than Elliot himself. She's gotten her hands dirty and suffered the consequences. I can reason around the characters' ignorance. Perhaps Price and Whiterose just don't really grasp how much f_society is Darlene's as much as Elliot's, but it seems like at some point the show could have a little more reliance in that fact as well. I don't necessarily think it's overwhelming to the point where I am pulled out of the experience. Overall, this is Elliot's story. Darlene is a supporting character, even when they've been pushing more weight onto her as the show goes on, so I don't necessarily think it's the wrong idea to suggest there's stuff going on with her without delving into it as deeply as we do for Elliot. Hell, I've even been critical of the execution of her b-plot this season not being quite as engaging as I would have hoped anyways. But I do think it is the duty of viewers to call out writing short-changing female characters, even if it feels somewhat calculated within the confines of the show.
Regardless, I am enthralled by this two episode streak of Mr. Robot. There was a minor mid-season slump in the writing that was made up for in the craft on display, but this episode shows an incredibly solid cohesion here. In particular, this episode's oner where the Deus Group's gathering is stunning (particularly love that not-so-subtle side-eye thrown to Trump). This series has always shown a very strong grasp on how oners should operate and I place many of them within the upper echelons of one-shots that cinema has to offer. I just love how damn cheeky this one is, though. Conceptually it operates as a troll to the audience. Esmail is so heavily in control of the heist genre he's able to wag his finger at the tropes.
i think some people might be missing the point. yeah they they didn't end up flying off together happily ever after, but they did both get what they both needed.
Dom is last seen sitting in the plane, passed out. this is important because earlier it stresses the point that she has basically not had any kind of meaningful sleep or rest in like 5 years. this is her finally feeling some level of peace, and being in a place where she is not afraid of the worst and able to fall asleep peacefully.
Darlene has been so co-dependent it is crippling to her when she is forced to be alone. she runs off and has a panic attack in the bathroom, but wills herself to accept that she can be ok on her own and this serves as a turning point in her growth and ability to move on and be ok whether she is alone or not. she needs to be able to be alone before she can be with someone.
edit 12/11:
also forgot to point out what i believe to be an intentional play against the stereotypical scene in which the two would have united at the last moment, with a catchy pop song to go along with it by an artist who has been arguably borrowing from the 80s in a large portion of her catalog. and from what i can recall, but i could be wrong, the fact that you hear little to no current pop music as a part of the soundtrack in any way remotely similar to how it is used in this scene, serves to support the intended play against such cliches in other films/shows.
[9.5/10] Is Susie Myerson a friend to the people in her life, or just a mercenary business woman? In the far off, distant year of 1990, combined roast/testimonial by the famed Friar’s Club suggests it’s the latter. The jokes are about her being tough as nails. The stories are about her being a Machiavellian (and persistent) bullshitter and ballbreaker. She’s being championed for these things, even as she’s being softly slated for them, and hearing her whole life’s professional accomplishments laid out in lionizing yet debasing detail seems to lead to nothing but disinterest from the now veteran entertainment legend.
The roast is a fun device. Not only does it allow the producers to bring back Gilmore Girls vets like Sean Gunn and Danny Strong, but it provides the show an excuse to jump around the timeline, giving us glimpses of Susie’s life, and by extension, those in her orbit, long past the main story’s late 1950s/early 1960s timeframe.
Many of those stories are fun, but paint Susie in the light of a manager who took a no-nonsense, “by any means necessary” approach to her job. During the famous triple crown, she pays off caddies, harangues execs, and invents sitcoms on the fly to make three major deals in one day.
When an entitled young hack of an actor demands the world from her, she reads him the riot act and tells him to fuck off. Rumors even fly that she bilked Harry Drake out of his clients when he wasn’t all there. The fellow showbiz muckety-mucks busting her chops seem to admire all of this, but the version of Susie they’re celebrating is slimy, abrasive, and something of a con artist.
And yet, for once, the truth is softer. She did inherit all of Harry Drake's big clients. But not because she got him to sign them over while he was delirious or paid off his daughter. Instead, Harry wanted her to have them because she was the one person he could trust. He saw the way she went the extra mile for Midge, kept her on the right path, and wanted the same for the stars who stayed loyal to him.
Before then, she thanks him for recognizing something in her and helping her get on her feet. Afterwards, she’s the only one who stays by his bedside while he’s dying. And if that weren’t enough, she pretends to be his daughter, not out of some selfish plot to take his business, but to grant him one last measure of kindness and peace in his final moments. The Susy Myerson people don’t know, the part of her life that doesn’t make headlines, are moments like that where she shows appreciation and care for the people who’ve helped make her a success.
Thankfully, that incudes Dinah! One of the small but joyous happy endings The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel offers in its final season is for her, who ends up not only becoming a manager with Susie’s mentorship, but running her whole east coast operation. On a personal level though, she also goes above and beyond a business relationship, to recognize when Dinah is being physically abused and send her goons after the culprit, while also giving Dinah the day off and the time and money to be able to rest and recover. People joke about her mob connections, but she does these things out of kindness. Whatever her faults, she goes out of her way for people, and isn’t just using them to further herself, even the underlings and also-rans with whom she could get away with it.
That same attitude, of course, extends to Midge. In a 1973 Hawiian wedding that Midge wants to break off, Susie tries to draw lines. She’s having a beautiful time and loves the peace and quiet of it all. Professional problems? You got it, Midge. But this is personal. It has to stop somewhere.
Except it doesn’t. It’s Susie who has to explain to the latest celebrity beau why he’s being left at the altar. It’s Susie who has to tell Grand Funk Railroad that their name is confusing and they won’t be playing tonight. It’s Susie who has to endure a comical scene where Abe and Rose go on about how expensive the cake they bought their daughter was. This goes beyond being a manager. This goes beyond business. This is the act of someone who cares.
And I guess, I have to begrudgingly admit, that also includes Joel. He is one of Susie’s greatest challengers here. After noting that she’s in with the mafia, and being wise enough from his dad’s operations to know there’s a second set of books, he’ll do anything to stop the mob from “owning” Midge. So what does he do? He offers himself instead, letting them get their hooks in his nightclub business by way of “financing” in exchange for leaving Midge alone.
Now let’s be real here. This is a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid plan. It works (more or less) because this is, despite some raunchiness, a generally bright and warmhearted show. But god help me, the answer to someone you love being in the mob is not to get your family in deeper with the mob. We like Frank and Nicky, so we’re apt to buy that they’re men of their word. But in reality, even the gilded reality of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, making deals with the mafia only ends badly for everyone. It’s a dumb solution to a problem that ought to, by all accounts, only make things worse.
And yet, taken in the aspirational tone of the show, this is Joel’s greatest redemption. I still don’t love the guy. I still find him kind of grating and entitled in his own way most of the time. But for someone who didn’t appreciate what he had with Midge, and who didn’t seem to respect her or the life they’d built or her talents as a stand-up, this is an act of him throwing himself in front of this bullet train so that he can protect her, and ensure that she can pursue her career free and clear of the mob’s influence, and not for nothing, the noblest thing he’s ever done.
Maybe that’s the answer for Susie and an improved, if not exactly enlightened Joel. He’s an obnoxious jerk much of the time, but when it counts most, when he has a chance to show he cares about Midge in a way he didn’t when they broke up, he not only seizes it but stays quiet about it for decades so as not to burden her.
With that, Joel is what breaks up Susie and Midge. The prison sentence we learned about a couple episodes back turns out to be the product of an FBI sting for his mob ties. Many of these flash forwards have prompted the audience to ask what could possibly break up Midge and Susie after all they’ve been through. The answer is satisfying. Whatever their issues, Midge cares about Joel. Her seeing him go to jail for her, to help cover for a problem Susie got into, would be a final straw, something big enough and harsh enough that it would change how Midge saw her manager.
It made Susie look more like George from The Gordon Ford Show. Most of this episode is about the future, but the one detail that advances the story in the present is Susie helping stage a coup to get George ousted (and with him, the rule against employees appearing on the show) and get Mike installed as the new producer. The smoking gun is George sitting on Gordon’s network contract so that he can feather his own nest. For all his gladhanding, for all he plucked Gordon from obscurity, he was just using the guy to further himself, putting his needs before his clients.
That's what Midge effectively accuses Susie of. And Susie has things to answer for. I like that several things that have been floating around in the background of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel come to the forefront here. I wondered all through last season how getting in with the mob would come back to bite Susie. Well, now it gets the partner of her number one client sent to jail. It sees Susie kicking thirty percent of Midge’s earnings to the mafia rather than to her. Even Susie’s seemingly pointless gambling problem comes back! With the suggestion that she’s forcing Midge to take tough casino gigs to settle her debts and square up with the wiseguys who own them.
Midge throws it all out there, accusing Susie of doing something worse than lying to her -- using her. When Susie tries to say they’re friends, Midge kicks it back in her face, chalking up the first time Susie ever used that phrase with her as a dodge, a sop, another con from a master of manipulation. In a fiery back-and-forth worthy of being compared to the Gilmore Girls’ “Friday Night's Alright for Fighting” family blow-up, the worst view of Susie comes from the person who arguably knows her best, which makes it sting all the more.
And still, when we return to the Testi-Rostial, something changes. Midge offers a video greeting. And in it, with the time to reflect and reminisce, she realizes that whatever their problems, Susie was always there for her. She was the person who went above and beyond to look after Midge not just as a business associate, but as someone who cared. She saw something in Midge, like Harry saw in her, and helped that fire burn hotter and brighter until the world could ignore it no longer. She fixed wedding disasters and staged talk show coups to clear the way, and rescued Midge’s third favorite hat. These are not the acts of a user; they’re the act of a friend.
But there’s something more too. Susie has seemed ambivalent to so much celebration, barely tolerating this dog and pony show. Only, Midge’s video has power. It is part apology, part expression of gratitude, but also part a recognition of something there that neither of them necessarily realized. When Midge couldn't go through with the wedding, she said that her beaus couldn't make her laugh. She’s cycled through boyfriends and husbands like chewing gum, looking for genuine love. And yet, years later, when she’s celebrating her manager, she talks about how Susie always did make her laugh, how Susie, in deeds not in words, showed her so much of that love. It’s a quiet sign of a quiet truth.
Susie isn’t a craven showbiz snake who treats her clients like expendable meal tickets and her supporters like stepping stones. She’s always been the one who recognizes the human beings beyond the business. And for Midge especially, she’s been more than a friend. She’s been a partner.
We are moving on from Succession into this?
I don't know what this show wants to be, satire or erotic thriller? It was so all over the place that made me confused about what I was watching. This show is like Sam Levinson hitting back at his critics (mocking the intimacy coordinator, portrayal of sex, drugs, etc.) for negative reviews for content he created in the past. Levinson is one of those directors who fancy themselves as provocative when in truth they have nothing original to say and use graphic content to distract viewers from that fact.
The show is just dull and boring. I feel like it thinks it’s more edgy than it is. Is anyone really shocked my nudity anymore?
The acting is so wooden and everyone just seems a bit surface level. The Weeknd has no charisma. You can’t see why Jocelyn is so attracted to him and let’s him do what he wants. And why did they give him the worst hairstyle imaginable? I’m surprised some people liked Lily’s acting. She is not that terrible but she’s just trying too hard with her expressions.Jocelyn and Tedros have all the chemistry of oil and water, and their relationship was given not even 60 seconds to develop. Jocelyn's song was painfully bad, it sounds like they came up with the melody first and then had an AI write the lyrics.
The dialogues are just edgy and trying to go for shock value every second. You can tell this show is written by a male that watches way too much porn.
Must watch tv!
I have to admit, prior to watching this show I was one of the ignoramuses who thought all Pitbulls were bad and all convicts should just stay in prison (or that they didn't deserve any rights while they were incarcerated)... man was I wrong.
When I first watched this show I remember stereotyping the people/animals right away, Tia appeared to be one of those "biker chicks" who probably shouldn't have custody of her kids, who no doubt had some drugs on the property and/or illegal activity going on but as I watched, admittedly mostly to see her fail and my preconceived notions of her (Tia), her children, the parolees and the Pitbulls come true, I was left eating crow. The show would peek my interest in not only educating myself more about Pitbulls but about parolees and the American justice system (wow, how screwed up that is!), it would shine a light on the medias fascination, and misrepresentation, of not only Pitbulls but ex-cons as well. Like so many things the media saw ratings in it's stories about these big bad dogs and ran with it, almost single-handedly turning peoples perceptions of the breed against them despite any evidence they are any worse than any other breed of dog. I already knew the media liked to do things like glorify shark attacks for ratings and ignore things like the fact more people die each year from cows then sharks but they never reported on that and here I was faced with the awful truth that I had been misguided... again!
As the years, and seasons, have gone on I have done a complete 180, I don't see the Pitbulls as the problem but simply those who own them, as a matter of fact I now consider Pitbulls to be among the most loyal and family friendly among breeds, I have educated myself about the problems with the American prison systems and mistreatment of convicts resulting in higher rates on re-offending and have seen what other countries are doing about it that has drastically reduced the recidivism of ex-cons not only reducing the stress on families but adding to the contributions made by these people in their communities.
Tia and her daughters, although inked and tough looking on first appearances, are simply strong willed women with hearts if gold.
Not an episode goes by that doesn't tear at the heart strings, makes me wonder how people can be so cruel, or how so many dogs can remain unadopted? Where would this world be without people like Tia? or shows like Pitbulls & Parolees.
