KaylaMaster

I understand that it's extremely difficult to pick up where a two-time winner of a character left off and where everyone knows the main character so well, but boy could they have done better.

Some characters weren't just miscast, they betrayed what we know about the series. The worst in my opinion is the character of David. He is a caricature. Dumb as a rock, and just doesn't seem like he could be Niles and Daphne's kid. A pathetic, unlikable critter. The other supporting characters were all written to be trying way too hard.

The great thing about Frasier the series, is that it could laugh at itself without being self-conscious.

Sorry to say, I was so disappointed in this re-boot, I didn't bother to renew my Paramount Plus subscription. This re-boot, was the only reason I got it in the first place.

Ahh, well, it makes you appreciate the great stuff that much more when you realize how hard it is to strike gold three times. (Frasier on Cheers being the first time.). They can't all be winners. This one sure isn't.

I finally decided to start watching this twelve or so year-old series, thinking it might be a great candidate for a "binge watch." I made it to nine episodes and then I had to purge.

What absurd, preposterous writing. Ironically, the fictional character Julia could probably have done a better job writing the story, even though we never really saw one for the musical they invited the biggest richest Broadway backers to see before they were done writing it. Nonsense. Contrived drama for no reason. Oh, and a longtime professional takes sleeping pills so she can't even stand up straight on stage and then has suddenly recovered enough to stop slurring her words and hang out with the rival she detests instead of getting back to work since he left the show before it was over! That would destroy a person's career forever unless she was near death and on her way to the emergency room.

From beginning to end, there is nothing believable about this story, except that it is indeed a dirty business. There are loads of examples of stupidity. Do you really think back-biting chorus people would suddenly come over to little Karen's house and take her under their wing because she tells one of them, "You should be helping me." Really? What planet do these writers live on?

Every plot line was ridiculous and insulted our intelligence. Almost all the characters were unlikable, with the exception of perhaps, Frank who left Julia. I cheered.

The musical numbers are much better. Many people criticize McFee's acting and she's not exactly a great actress, but she's got a hell of a voice and can hold her own nicely with the dancers. Too bad there's still nothing but belting on Broadway even now. Many of these singers blow their voices out before they're 30.

Just don't think this is any sort of inside look at professional or Broadway theater. It ain't.

This movie seemed like it might be fun, as the premise is more relevant today than ever, but the casting and the terrible acting made the whole thing aggravating and a giant waste of time.

Just gotta say it. Sadie Katz had a voice like fingernails on a blackboard. If she had a cold, they needed to wait until she recovered. Unfortunately, that wouldn't have helped her performance, just make here tolerable to listen to. Sorry to say, the rest of the cast weren't much better. This looked like a high school film project.

Just because you have a low budget doesn't mean you have to hire people with little to no talent. There are endless numbers of out-of- work actors who could have done a better job.

The robot probably gave the best performance of the lot. We were rooting for him to give 'em all pink slips.

I must confess. I pretty much hated this film. Stereotype characters weren't even as bad as the preposterous screenplay. Deep and profound problems disappear in an instant, and with no apparent reason--just that the writer I guess, wanted it to wrap it all up in a vacuous little bow for a happy ending.

It's not that romantic comedies have to be so based in reality but it's best if they're remotely believable so you can care about these characters. Pearl defiantly goes out with this stranger to "spite" her mother but there's never any mention again as to what that conflict was about. Pearl's mother turns out to be nothing but supportive. There examples like that everywhere. A suicidal kid is suddenly well with one conversation with his mother. Puh-leeze. One visit to a cemetery and his mother suddenly gets a clue. Puh-leeze again! The sisters too...suddenly getting along. The writer has no clue about human behavior.

Oh yes, and.... "Used People" ??? Used up? Used by others? Used how? The title alone would make any smart person take a pass. The producers seemed to be banking on the "Oscar winning" talent which was considerable. -- and they came up with this? Oy!!

It was obvious that this screenplay was written to appeal to women. Family problems, addictions, Mother-daughter conflicts, etc. Etc. My primary problem is one that is so endemic to modern movies: Morally reprehensible people turned into heroes your supposed to root for.

Why are there more "hit men and women" movies than ever before? To desensitize people to the fact that people kill for money and don't care why so long as they get paid?

Of course it is to the film's credit that they try to address that very issue, as Ava has periods of curiosity about that very question. But it really goes no further than to get her into trouble. Don't think that's a spoiler, but more of a tease.

There's also a clear agenda here to portray a women contract killer as every bit as strong as John Wick or whomever else. She might be quicker but she's not stronger. But hey, women are supposed to love this and long for more and more of it!

All that said, it wasn't a bad film. It did keep my attention. I'm just tired of the trash culture that glorifies murderers and criminals. I know, I know. Be hip! Be cool! It's just a movie! Swallow the drivel that Hollywood dishes out! From the looks of the reviews, it appears their strategy isn't working at all well. That's something to celebrate!

The list of stupidities in this movie are practically endless. It insults the intelligence, yet somehow people loved it. I guess, to each his own, but how can you get worked up about a story and characters that are this ridiculous in so many ways?

The screenwriters really must think we're idiots. The Liam character has no brain, no heart and no soul, yet writes heart-wrenching songs. He's a good kid but hasn't spoken to his father since he went off to become a "star." He's an idiot and a heartless idiot at that.

He leaves 20,000 fans in the lurch one night, and the next day, the magazines in his hometown all have the story on the stands. Come on!!!

I am actually in the middle of this movie right now and can't get through it. Of course, there will be a "happy ending" but not for anyone with a brain in their heads.

Over and out.

This film left me cold. Moral depravity and disrespect for life but one of the messages is that the kid who had no parenting whatsoever never wants to pick up a gun again? As if it was the gun, and not the criminality and horrible human weaknesses that were responsible for his predicament?

The screenplay was too pat, too contrived and dependent on nothing but killing and more killing ---of course, some of that is expected with a story about mob hit-men, but it's so great when you get more.

The performances were excellent, especially the kid. Very expressive face and talent beyond his years.

Sometimes, the reviews here are more entertaining than the film. I love differences of opinion and often fascinated with how differently people react and think about different things.

Case in point, and not talking religion here at all, but many have written that there was redemption in this film. Where? Doesn't redemption require one to recognize their errors, see their impact, ask for forgiveness, and try to do better? Just making one good choice (acting to protect his son the only way he knew how) does not redemption make.

For me, this film could have been so much more. It was dark and depressing about what human doings do to each other and to their children. That was probably one of the messages but I sure wouldn't say it was a masterpiece as many have written here.

I generally don't care whether there's a plurality of opinion on a particular aspect of a review or for that matter, even a point of view.

But, I agree with the plurality this time. I thought the episodes focusing on mediums and the Dutch woman were preposterous.

Here's my main point: If they would include those episodes in a series that began with some fascinating and even persuasive stories, doesn't that call into question the credibility of it all?

I wanted to be fairly persuaded on some of it, but this tainted the rest. If they would throw everything plus the kitchen sink in the mix, then they may not have done the proper due diligence on the rest either. This is often (not always) true in other ideologies as well.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Loved the topic but don't be fooled by the clear bias that just gets stronger and stronger with this movie. (Opinions are like derrieres, everyone has one) but to present this as a documentary and not own the fact that it promotes certain things and dismisses others is to lower it's credibility.

Here's my bias: Liberty is a moral imperative. -and it's not for the government to decide for people what will or will not make them happy because eventually, they will use their power to impose it on everyone. This is what is so wrong with Marxism, Socialism et al. The collective notion that if it's good for one person, it must be good for all. (That's a lie too, because it's usually only good for the people who are trying to subjugate and enslave others.) It takes a while for this movie to show it's bias but show it, it does: Religion, bad. Communes, good. And many more. For any film to ignore the matter of free will, individual choice and the ability to make those personal decisions about what one choosed to pursue and how he will spend his time, is to ignore an essential quality for happiness.

Not that part of this film weren't moving. The woman who surmounted getting run over by a car was incredibly moving, but the ingredients for happiness are not the same for everyone, yet this film has a collectivist bias. Being free enough to discover what is important in one's life is part of the joy of living. This movie may either intentionally or unintentionally promote the notion that the recipe is the same for everyone. Just do as I say!

It is profoundly important to learn about Beethoven as one of the supreme examples of persistence in the face of adversity (personal as well as social).

I wish this film would not have avoided the story of Beethoven's father, who it is said, berated his son saying "Why can't you be more like Mozart?" Commentators side-stepped the psychological impact of this, as if it were merely genetic that he was "irascible" like his father. He was irascible in some ways, because of his father. This was even great adversity which he turned into some of the most brilliant music ever written. Had he focused entirely on being the victim, the world would never have had such astonishing music that has stood the test of time. The inspiration of Beethoven's life stands the test of time as well.

This is not the quintessential Beethoven documentary but that is more a testament to the power of the story of Beethoven himself and what his story continues to teach the world.

I love ballet movies...I guess, even bad ballet movies. The Red Shoes this is not. Choppy, unnecessarily confusing, leaving you wondering about one aspect (I won't spoil it) and only explaining it as an afterthought in a scene an hour later.

It was wholly unnecessary to skip back and forth so many times leaving numerous and distracting questions. The characters were periodically unrealistic, moving once again from amazingly kind to cutthroat in a matter of minutes.

It was also rather bizarre to go from English subtitles most of the time to a smattering of spoken, broken English--which often required closed captioning to understand...but you can't do that, as then you'll have subtitles times two! Hmmmm!

That said, I loved the ending! Triumphant and touching. I wouldn't say it was worth the wait but at least the movie finally, FINALLY had a point.

I've been "binge-watching" this series b/c I have a "girl crush" on Sutton Foster who seems to be blessed with every possible talent. She's a true triple Broadway threat, she's nice, funny, and disgustingly optimistic.

I wouldn't bother to spend so much time watching a 1 season, 10 year old series otherwise.

There's a lot to like about this series and a lot not to like. What's with the identical cadence everyone speaks in? Is this another planet? Why does everyone sound scripted, talk too fast and sound like valley girls?

The show can be funny, very touching and I LOVE ballet stories, but the story arc is implausible, contrived, forced and rushed. You feel like you're being strung along by people who don't much like you.

I'm on episode 11 and not looking forward to the cliffhanger left in perpetual uncertainty but I hope that immensely talented Broadway musical comedy performers will have more opportunities to strut their stuff rather than having to hang up their voices and their dance shoes to bow to Hollywood's often misguided agenda.

Let 'em sing! Let 'em dance! (They did a lot, and that's why I'm still watching.)

Write a better storyline and we might have had a season two!

I was so please to finally take the time to see this film. Elizabeth Taylor was stunningly beautiful. Monty was believable as a heterosexual and it was fun to see Raymond Burr as a prosecutor and such a young Shelly Winters.

When the story turned into a court case it was beyond annoying that neither attorney addressed the most obvious and damning fact in the case: He LEFT her there! He returned home. He went about his business and then pretended to know nothing about any of it. He then tried to evade police. This was Chappaquiddick 18 years early.

The thing I loved most while watching it was this: I felt confident he would get what was coming to him for the simple reason that this movie was made in 1951. Bad guys had to pay for their crimes.

If this film was made in the late 60's and 70's or later, he wouldn't have gotten away with the crime, been portrayed as a victim, and went on to marry Liz, live in a mansion and then get divorced.

I love older movies.

Even big Hollywood movies perpetuate the lie that criminal, Bugsy Siegel "invented" Las Vegas. True to his MO as a criminal he "made an offer to Billy Wilkerson and he couldn't refuse... (Leave or die.) and then stole the idea.

I liked the show until they perpetuated that falsehood. Then I realized that this there is no dedication to the truth in this series. Looks like others have validated that hunch.

Why can't a supposed "documentary" stay true to the facts or at least do the research necessary portray the facts accurately. It calls into question a lot more of this series. It might as well be The Godfather or Good Fellas.

I am impressed that a healthy percentage of reviewers weren't duped by this mess of a movie. The movie is perfect to describe the age of schlock, where a film that hardly rises to mediocrity can somehow pass as a "masterpiece."

I couldn't wait for it to be over. In fact, this short review is over as that's about all it deserves.

Despite Melanie Griffith's weak characterization and other quirk's, I still love this movie. Usually have to watch at least some of it when it finds it's way to my TV once again.

Here's the quirk that has always bothered me: (Don't think it's a spoiler, so I have not checked it as such) "Cyn" is her friend at the very beginning of the movie. The opening scene has them walking to work. Tess leaves that job and goes to work elsewhere. Funny, she's in the exact same secretarial pool as Cyn? Neither of them mention it, yet Cyn is always there in the same office. That's quite a convenient coincidence!

Also, it's fascinating how much business has been demonized in recent years. What used to be a triumph of feminism...that women can be just as effective in business as men, has now become a hatred of business all together. How sad. This limits women's choices, rather than broadens them. There was a time when women longed to use their brain in a setting like this. Sure, it's not for everyone, but isn't it allowed to be for someone?

The movie itself, is a great piece of fluff that's just plain fun to watch again and again

I don't understand modern movie-goers who think this is a good movie, let alone a great one. The film kept my attention and I hoped against hope that it would reveal some sort of resolution; some sort of reason for bothering to have made it. Nothing. Gratuitous violence, murder of completely innocent people, blood and guts, and then when it comes time for the main characters to confront the killer, we don't see anything. We are supposed to simply conclude....what?

The sensationalism with no purpose and the portrayal and glorification of murder is senseless and worse, demeaning of the culture. Is the message that "This is no country for old men?" All I had to do was read the title. Why bother making the movie? Where was the plot? What was the purpose? I feel ripped off by this movie and what is more troubling: Hollywood thought it was so great, they nominated it for best picture of the year. Correction: I was stunned after writing this review that it won! What more do you need to know about Hollywood "values?"

Yep, they're the ones who don't think law-abiding citizens ought to have the right to defend themselves from crazies and mad men like this in real life, yet their movies get bloodier and bloodier. They portray psychopaths who get away with murder and by doing so, they glorify it. No values, no plot, no integrity, no thanks.

After seeing bits and pieces of this film on too many occasions, I finally sat down to really watch it. For what seems like forever, I have known that this is the quintessential "chick flick" that makes women swoon and cry. Huh?

I found it formulaic and foolish. Hmmm, 4 days? Four days, you decide that a guy ambling through town is the love of your life? Hollywood is pathetic. I kept trying to care about these people and about the cliché'd housewife who agonizes over whether to leave her husband and her children and run off with a guy she just met. We love and romanticize what we don't have and take for granted what we do. --Especially since we only see their best side in the beginning, while trying to compare that with the reality in which we live. Hollywood loves and elevates the superficial and denigrates truth and reality.

It's possible that the only way lovers like these could remain in love with such a fantasy is precisely because they never dealt with real life together. It might not have been so romantic. Maybe they would even have discovered that they weren't as compatible as they thought. Still, the mysterious man of the world "that got away" is what makes women cry.

I'll tell you what I find romantic. The couple who has been through hell and back together and still get butterflies at the sight of one another.

On top of all of that.......Streep is overrated in this. If that was an Italian accent, I wonder what Czechoslovakian sounds like.

I agree that the film is pretty awful, but Hollywood puts out every bit as much propaganda in the other direction. Their propaganda is taken more seriously because it's "cool" and they're so much more sophisticated in their production of it.

Conservatives and Christians are always the bad guys in typical Hollywood films and protected groups are victimized and angelic. They elevate bad behavior and demonize those who at least strive to do the right thing. That's propaganda too.

Many things I hated about this movie but one thing they said was excellent. It's every person's choice. I wish more people would take that freedom seriously and protect it more vociferously. We are losing our freedoms in this country because too many people have caved to the notion that what they choose for themselves, ought to be forced on everyone else. They put their own freedom at risk when they accept "bans" and overreaching government control. They just don't yet know it.

I found plenty of things in this film offensive, not the least of which was the "death bed conversion." But you know what? The constitution doesn't protect you from being offended. In fact, we ought to protect these producers' right to make a lousy movie....and lousy, it was.

I knew it would happen. Eventually, the evil queen in Sleeping Beauty would be made to be ultimately sympathetic. We just can't leave well enough alone. I know, I know, people aren't all good or all bad. We want to make them "complex characters." If that's so, how come there was no redemption for Aurora's father? He was complex too. He could have done worse (trying not to spoil too much) but tried to have it both ways.

Regardless of what he did, there was no redemption for him. He was simply bitter and evil. I wanted to like this movie but I detest these Hollywood "improvements" on much loved fairy tales. We grew out of them and learned to see them for what they were......tales. Now however, there is no childhood, no decent fathers, and no clear right and wrong. Though visually, a beautiful film for the most part (except for Jolie's pointy cheekbones) it was a disappointment. I didn't feel like cheering in the end and poor Aurora never much missed her Dad. In the end, the movie just became another forgettable Hollywood cliché.

Trying not to write a complete spoiler but it's tough, since the ending is what I want to talk about. I'd say, this is a partial spoiler but not completely!

It took a very long time for me to finally watch this movie because I am such a fan of The Shawshank Redemption. I knew there were plenty of similarities both in subject matter, and people connected to both films.

There's no doubt that I was increasingly on the edge of my seat as the movie progressed, but ultimately, I was deeply disappointed in the ending. Here's my reasoning:

John had suffered so much pain and disappointment in humanity. He was living in a time very different from today when blacks were often scapegoats for the crimes of others. (Much like in To Kill a Mockingbird) He wanted and frankly, was in desperate need of someone to save HIM as he had done for countless others. Here was a man who delighted in the smallest things of nature, of art and music and in the good of humanity. No one would have appreciated a kind act more than him, nor did he need it so desperately. Yes, he was a sensitive soul who absorbed the pain of others. But if you've ever heard this from anyone you love and/or respect and believed they were a powerful force for good in the world, would you just take them at their word that they wanted to die? Of course not! He needed Paul to stand up for HIM. To save HIM, and to speak out at the injustice of executing any man for a crime he did not commit. That would have been the heroic thing to do.

This had an expedient Hollywood ending but it doesn't make one feel a sense of triumph the way Shawshank did. Truth and justice did not will out. I know, I know, that's the way it is sometimes in the real world but clearly the movie was made to make a point, to convey important ideas. I much prefer a film that ultimately has an uplifting message that makes all the pain and horror of watching it worthwhile, at least in the movies!