Opiniones de Her-Excellency

Full disclosure: I turned it off after 14-15 minutes. Now, normally when I read a review that starts off with "I turned it off" ... I immediately think: well, how would you know if it was truly a good film or not?

I now KNOW.

To me, this thing was so unrealistic. Every character I did see, was so forced and almost a parody of themselves. The desperation was so over the top, it almost reeked through the screen.

The worst part was the dialogue. I mean I actually feel BAD for the people who wrote the script. Are they pulling from real-life experiences? If so, holy hell! They need help, STAT!

I can tell you with all sincerity, that if I was ever stuck in a room with half of these characters, I'd RUN and begin looking into alternate universes for fear that their jadedness and loathing for reality and life was somehow contagious.

Pedro, what were you thinking?!?

If you thought M3GAN (2023) was good, you'll definitely enjoy the high-tech horror, razor-sharp wit, and deliciously deranged fun of M3GAN 2.0. It's what happens when filmmakers really like the first film they made, and then find the ability and brilliance to crank up the dial on everything.

The sequel wastes no time reminding us why we liked M3GAN in the first place, but this time, it amps up her personality to the level of "I have to get one of these dolls!" - Lol! Right out of the gate, 2.0 is faster, funnier, and far more self-aware. Even its tone is much more confident, leaning heavily into both the fun and absurdity of a murderous AI doll with Meow/Hiss-level sass and Terminator-level efficiency. Her one-liners are sharper, her dance routines more elaborate (yes, there are new ones, and yes, they're iconic), and her kill scenes toe the line between horror and hilarity in the best way possible.

What makes M3GAN 2.0 especially fun is how it plays with audience expectations. It dives deeper into the ethics of AI, corporate greed, and our obsession with technology ... but never at the expense of the entertainment. The satire hits harder, and the horror-comedy balance is tighter, making the whole ride feel more purposeful and polished than its predecessor.

This is not just a better movie - it's a smarter, sleeker, and wildly more entertaining version of itself. It's the rare sequel that "upgrades" everything while staying true to what made the original special.

Long live the queen of killer androids! :)

8.2 / 10.

I love the Final Destination film franchise. While I heard a friend once describe these films as 'cheesy' (we're no longer friends) ;) they are entertaining and we must have watched each at least two or three times if not more.

Final Destination Bloodlines, while somewhat different than the other FD's, delivers - especially when you consider that most franchises can't even do a sequel well. With Final Destination, here we are at six films in, and it's going strong. We've watched it twice and enjoyed it both times. The gore is just right; the number of kills are okay, although who can't use more of those - lol; and the music and humor are on-point ... something which the other installments didn't really venture in, too much.

While all of the other five FD installments had a design to follow in terms of what the franchise is about, Final Destination Bloodlines plays with that just a bit, both adding to the blueprint and taking away. It verges somewhat (not too far, thankfully), while keeping true to the originals. In fact, embracing them.

On that last point, where do we go from here and what new possibilities are there? I definitely hope that this is not the end, and that we'll continue to enjoy new Final Destinations for a very long time. Personally, I'd love to get a standalone film about the bratty kid's (no spoiler) grown-up life and how he finally eats it (hopefully, something really, really gory and over the top)! :D

7/10 --------------------- RiP: Tony Todd (12/4/1954 - 11/6/2024)

I have no idea why this film gets such a bad rap and why it's rated so low on some of the more 'popular' movie rating sites. I mean, seldom do I go by what critics think, but just the fact that it is panned quite resoundingly, is such a bummer. I love this moooovieeee!

While the genre-mixing (apocalyptic horror, siege thriller, religious allegory, humor, action ...) seemed to not go over so well when first released, in my opinion, it's one of the film's many strengths. It's unconventional, it's bold in taking on some of the religious aspects that it does, and it's just plain original. It's basically a supernatural Western! :)

Granted, the acting from quite a few of those involved isn't up there with Walken and Hopper in True Romance (I mean, how often do we have it THAT good?), but Paul Bettany really shines in this. He manages to convey both divine purpose and human empathy. It's a role that could've been cheesy, but Bettany manages to sell it well.

Beyond that, it's touching, fun, funny, has some really good fight scenes, it moves at a steady pace, there's no filler, and again, I have to go back to: originality.

No, Legion isn't PERFECT - it's messy in some places, and sometimes too ambitious for its own good. But that ambition, combined with it's unique premise is exactly what gives it cult status. It tried something different in a genre full of clones, and while it didn't hit with everyone, I think it resonates with those who crave something different than just jump scares.

7.5/10.

As you've probably already gathered from other reviewers, this film seems to consist of different parts. Where some say two, I'd say three. The short, mostly strong beginning; the very well done middle ... and that pretty weak last part, where suddenly, it takes a turn down a side road where so many things that had kept our attention so far, start to get lost in the realm of the preposterous and just drags the other two parts down firmly into "what in the world were they thinking?" Did they just run out of opportunities to get it out in time under the "28 Years Later" name and franchise, and so they had to piecemeal something to close it out on? I would have rather waited for the '28 Years and 28 Weeks' version.

Right off the bat, let me get out what might be an unpopular opinion here: Michael B. Jordan CANNOT act! Period. (Can anyone please teach him how to make his hands tremble without appearing as if he has the palsy)? You'll have to see the film to see what I am speaking of, but it's bad.

Now that I have that out of the way - and downvote all you want - I'm not here for the likes, but to express my thoughts on films - among the bogged down mish-mash of all the genres this film wanted to cover ... WHAT A MAGNIFICENT collective 30-or-so minutes of viewing!

In this world of disposables, duplicates, and copies galore, this is a highly original film, and one for which Ryan Coogler must be applauded and lauded even though it seems as if it is a compilation of different genres of films, all glued together (with with a couple of the genres - music and horror - beating out the rest). Coogler not only wrote, directed, and co-produced this, but had to pitch it to Proximity Media and Warner Bros. Pictures. I'm so happy he did, as those thirty-or-so minutes of treasure you find within, are excellent.

When speaking of the OTHER "minutes", well ... some are necessary, of course. Most, however, are excruciatingly slow. I wished a lot more cuts and edits had been made to leave the superfluousness on the editing room floor. To me, that would have made for a more streamlined, edgier and far better movie experience. Still, (again), once it begins picking up the pace and getting to the meaty parts, it's one film that shouldn't be missed.

The music alone is great, with a mix that blends various styles and genres like the blues, gospel, modern, and Irish folk. It's a treat to the ears. It also doesn't overdo it, which some films featuring music tend to do.

Beyond just the music, the characters played by Jack O'Connell (Remmick), Wunmi Mosaku (Annie), Li Jun Li (Grace), Delroy Lindo (Slim), and Omar Benson Miller (Cornbread), are all really, really good to downright fabulous. Arguably, a watch-worthy prequel could be made about each of them! :)

Lastly, the themes of community, identity, oppression, trauma, memory and the power of music, hit heavy and land mostly well.

9/10 (Music) 10/10 (Remmick scenes) 4/10 (Exposition / Filler)

I so very much enjoy Tom Hiddleston in films. Karen Gillan is also a treat to watch in selected films. The rest of the cast is worth more than an honorable mention alone, as many familiar faces grace the screen (especially toward the beginning of the film). Lastly, I tend to love this 'type' of movie. I can't give too much away without using a spoiler tag, but if you watch the interview(s) with the cast featured here on IMDB, you'll know what "type" I am referring to. I wonder if I can get away with 'apocalyptic', since that is a word straight from one of these interviews.

That said ... it was a bit of a letdown for me.

The beginning was slow, but it was good. It built an expectancy toward so much more and a feeling that it was going to get so much better. Sadly, that was never fully realized or delivered.

Beginning in the second act, the film definitely starts to bog down and suffers from side or follow-up scenes that are just way too long and a bit far-fetched. The narration, too, is used far too often to the point of it just about verging on annoying.

By the third act, when they begin to introduce what is supposed to be the point of the entire thing, it has already been too bogged down by too much of not enough - if that makes sense. While the child actor is adorable and does so well, here too the movie just drags.

Moreover, everything is so overly-EXPLAINED. It's kind of like Flanagan did not trust the audience to understand what was happening, so either the narrator or characters went to great lengths to explain every detail. Well, while some may disagree, I believe audiences are more intelligent than this film gives them (us) credit for.

Sorry Mike Flanagan fans, but this is the third time I have been let down by one of his offerings. :(

Reviewer nb99 says it best, and mirrors many of my same thoughts in regard to this film. However, where nb99 and I disagree, is in that I think comparison to the first Gladiator is warranted, (after all, this is Gladiator II), and would be almost impossible NOT to do.

And in comparison, it is both inferior, and falls short. I think, too, that doesn't come as a great surprise. I believe that if we're all honest, we can agree that we all already KNEW from the trailers, that Gladiator II, was never going to usurp or even rightly be awarded the crown which the original Gladiator still wears. We HOPED it would measure up ... but we knew. And so, the majority of the reviews and the declining IMDB rating (7.5 to 7.1 from just yesterday to today) is unsurprising ... or it should be.

For me, the movie stole the wrong things, and then left out the things it should have included, from the first. One of the greatest things which Gladiator did, was it would mesmerize you at the beginning of each scene, and it then moved along into some fantastic dialogue. Gladiator II, has problems with this from the very first scene. It is also a bit predictable.

IMO, if your household is like our household and you find yourself often reverting to really great things you've watched before in lieu of something new but mediocre, then save this one until it can be streamed. It shouldn't be too long a wait.

5.5/10.

My reviews are normally a bit lengthy, or at least lengthier than most. With Megalopolis, I will be brief:

There is just no way that I, in good conscience, could recommend this film.

I mean, no matter how "bad" a film may be, most of the times there is at least one thing which can be appreciated or lauded. I found nothing of the sort in this. It all felt like one big joke at the expense of the audience (us), or like a big gala affair someone wanted a tax deduction on, and for us to witness.

Take any GOOD Roman story, or film, or series ("Rome" comes to mind), modernize it - or more aptly, place it in a modern setting, then take away the aforementioned "GOOD", and you have: Megalopolis.

There is a reason why this script sat on the shelf for as long as it did.

(Even the wonderfully-worded Top Reviews are misleading, in that they leave the reader with questions about the film that they may think will be answered if it is viewed. Trust me when I say that if you value your time even in the slightest, this is a waste of it).

UPDATED REVIEW: I am leaving my original review below, only because I have to meet a 600-character minimum (is that new - and WTH??).

Anyway, I really, enjoyed much of this series, but the Finale was just hands-down TERRIBLE. EVERY PERSON who thought it was a good idea to end this eerie, kind of sick, very twisted series, with THAT Finale, should be fired . . . And good riddance! :)

* * * * * * * * * *

Original review: I did not think I would enjoy this, but I am SO into it!!! I can't wait until my family (well, just hubster since this might be a bit much for kids), can watch it with me. It's SO devilishly and gruesomely good, that I am sad that there aren't more episodes out yet. It's been a while since we watched anything that hasn't been out and isn't "bingeable", but this is one show I think we'll gladly wait on for each episode.

As for the main actress, I see some rivaling reviews here in regard to her her age, her looks, even her weight (!!!). Personally, I couldn't give a big sneeze about any of that. Her acting is pretty great. I particularly like that she seems "real", and not like a carbon copy or clone of every other detective on a procedural show. I DON'T like that you do have to stretch your imagination a little in order to come to terms with why this case isn't handed over to a bigger group, organization or department, but the hints of surrealism help to push along the narrative that there's a good reason for that somewhere down the storyline. Plus, whoever came up with the sick mentality of the baddie, deserves accolades (and much help).

If it seems to be your cup of tea, or you're on the fence, watch the first episode and decide for yourself if you're up for the ride this takes you on (assuming it keeps up to the level of its first two episodes).

We were SO excited when we heard about this film and more so, when we saw the first trailer. Counting down to it was almost torture. I mean ... the Alien franchise, is iconic - despite some missteps. This was THE next must-see film on our list!

And so, with almost break-the-bank loads of popcorn, hot dogs, and drinks in hand, we waited with bated breath, to be mind-blown-out-of-an-airlock. ... Sadly, though, that did not happen.

The beginning of Aliens Romulus is downright boring. WHEN have the Alien movies started off boring and remained boring for very long? Not before this. So much exposition for what could have been explained in five minutes, did not bode well. It's almost as if this movie script started off as a different movie altogether, and then someone said, "Oh, let's make the aliens part of THE Aliens universe!" And so, about thirty minutes or more into it, is when you start seeing hints of the slimy, acidic, face-hugging world Ridley Scott first brought us. It's at that point that it slowly picks up and there are some really good scenes - as well as some scenes we've seen before.

All in all, it has been done better.

One thing, or rather, person, who stood out, is David Jonsson as Andy. He delivered an amazing performance, and mark my words, he'll be in high demand after this.

Everyone is either going overboard with praise for this film, which is ridiculous, or are choosing to bash it simply for its overabundance of (semi-graphic) sexual scenes. I think that both groups are missing very important points.

The really deplorable things within the film which I believe most people are missing or are just not commenting on, are:

1. The easy way in which SO MUCH animal abuse is interspersed throughout the entire thing. WHEN did we reach a place where it is so acceptable in films???

2. The fact that the main character is mentally underaged for most of the film, and yet, the sexual encounters with her are not only okay, but celebrated.

If this is what is now called "art", I bow out from supporting it.

WHAT happened to JRM?

Jonathan Rhys Meyers was one of the most adorable and really good actors (or so I thought), just a few years back. I thought he would pave his way to superstar status after seeing him opposite Tom Cruise in one of the MI movies. So ... what happened that led him to hit the rock-bottom that is Disquiet?

This is the type of film you see as a first outing, when someone is just trying to break into the acting game, and which they later regret and never mention again. So, HOW could it have come after some genuinely good parts he has played?

It's a mystery ... and a disappointment.

... but she makes it so difficult!

That speaking voice! The lip-synching. The "acting". This mess of a movie. Why, Jen? WHY?

Why not take the money she invests in these self-financed vanity projects and invest in other, talented, upcoming actors and actresses and films? I think she has a good eye due to the fact that somewhere in all the chaos of This is Me Now, there's a hint of what it could have been under a different crew ... and with a different actress. Sadly, it's just a hint and much too hidden in all the different directions this film wanted to go to, but couldn't quite reach.

Also, there are more Latinas out there than just Puerto Ricans. Maybe if JLO made movies for ALL of us, rather than focusing on a particular group, they would be more appealing to the masses she is obviously trying to reach.

I love my hubby. He is one of the best things in my life. The fact, however, that he actually lends any credence or weight into Rotten Tomatoes movie scores, drives me crazy! Yes, yes, I know .... the same can be said about me who uses IMDB to test the temperature of films before viewing or to leave thoughts on them once viewed. But seriously, speaking of comparisons, RT is a joke with a bad punchline.

So is the case with this film.

The Elderly, or "Viejos" stands at a 100% RT Rating at this writing. Not 15% of that is deserved. To say that some serious SOMETHING must have exchanged hands in order to generate that 100% score, is probably not an exaggeration.

While both the two gents who play the dads (dad and granddad) and the lady who plays the stepmom are pretty believable, one of the MAIN characters (the daughter/granddaughter) is AWFUL. Let me say this just for the record: BlG BOOBS DON'T EQUAL TALENT. Her acting is stiff and her facial expressions when no lines are running, are awkward and annoying.

The MAJOR problem is the story itself. Now, while I would like to say it had potential, how true can that be, exactly? I mean anything and everything COULD have potential and in the case of The Elderly, if a million things had been done differently with it, perhaps it would have. As it is, it was a hodgepodge of angry statements by one character, clueless responses from another, lots of tight shots of worried faces, and THEN, the most ridiculous of endings to have ever made film less than it should be.

I heard about Milli Vanilli when I was really, really young - right out of toddlerhood, maybe. As such, at the time, I never really understood everything that happened back then involving this "scandal", but it always surprised me how vehemently ANGRY quite a few people would become at the thought of these two men, Robert Pilatus and Fabrice Morvan having "lip-synced some songs". (Yes, that's pretty much what I knew of it). As I grew up, I understood more of it, especially because I was involved in dance, but still, the indignation and ire with which some people referred to it, always escaped me. As much WRONG that was done by these guys, much worse was actioned by the ones who used them and benefitted from them. Can anyone who sees this documentary, truly say they would not at least pause and consider the dream-come-true which was presented to be plucked? If anything, they brought the world some GREAT tunes which otherwise may not have been made or may not have had the success and airplay they did. What a shame that the brunt of the fallout and fallback, as this documentary shows, was paid by the two performers.

I've never really been what you can call a Timberlake fan. I can take his music or leave it. As for his screen work, I don't think I have ever been particularly moved to watch a project based on his inclusion, or not. That said, he was pretty excellent in this. Based on this one performance, I may have to reevaluate his body of work. Yes; he was that good.

Del Toro, in the meantime, (at least at the beginning), pulled a bit at my heartstrings because he looked both, so much older than I am used to, and somewhat heavier and more "worn" than usual. His performance, however, was ever so rich with subtle context and deep ever-changing ranges of conflict, that it reminded me of the first time I saw him in Traffic. He's mesmerizing.

The rest of the cast was nothing short of perfect. It is better for me to point out the copious amount of collective talent, rather than make this review too long by pointing out each nuanced performance. So, to watch this for any of these actors would be reward enough. To watch it for all of them is a treat. And yet ... it delivers more than that. You see, despite all the strong portrayals, the REAL "magic" in this film, happens in the story and how it's told.

While not necessarily linear, and while sometimes a bit heavy-handed, the tale is solidly terrific.

I thought that this series could not possibly be as bad as most were saying. I thought there had to be some redeeming quality to it or that it was just generally "misunderstood" as sometime happens. Whew! Was I wrong! This series is altogether boring, distasteful, cringey, badly-acted, horribly scripted, shoddily filmed, and awfully composed. I HONESTLY cannot think back to ANY series as head-shakingly poorly made as this one.

For a series to appeal to the average viewer, it MUST BE a COMPILATION of POSITIVE factors which FAR OUTWEIGH the negative ones. ... And trust me, one could dig to the bottom, of the bottom, of the bottom of the barrel on this one, (not a difficult thing to accomplish, seeing as that's pretty much where it begins and ends), and not find ONE positive about it.

Even Lily Rose who I have liked in other starter roles, is ALL-around awful in this. The way she is photographed or lit or filmed in this, is not very flattering. Did they do this on purpose? Was there a reason for it? Don't get me started on the Weeknd guy. In what universe did someone decide he would make a good leading male? I cringe in embarrassment for these two people. Both can do better, I think, although the rest of the cast is no indication of that assertion. The sex scenes are wooden, and not in a good way. The "sexy talk" is anything but. Yes, dialogue as is placed in a couple of the bedroom scenes DOES exist in real life, but SELDOM in the real life worlds of those who know each other for two minutes - and IF it does, it probably sounds just as fake and embarrassing as it does in this series.

Chemistry between the two leads might help, but that ship never made it to port, much less sailed.

Dan Levy, Jane Adams, Hank Azaria (to name a few) seem to almost wince in distress when delivering their lines. (REALLY). The feeling of 'oh my god; how did I get into this?', is almost palpable. Hari Nef's delivery is as excellent as hearing nails scratch across a chalkboard.

As for 'creator' Sam Levinson - OMG - don't get me started! I can't decide who is more repressed - him, or the director of 2022s Blonde, Andrew Dominik. I would be terrified to meet either of them at ANY point in my life, much less in a dark alley or club. Just the thought makes me want to bathe with bleach and brushes. Both are top on my list of directors to avoid at all costs.

Also on my list of who to avoid is anyone who left a 10-Star review for this series. Surely they are part of the crew ... or, they've never, ever before watched television, and cannot be trusted. Ever. I mean, like EVER. Actually, neither can anyone giving it ANY rating above a 3. Heck, I don't trust the 2-Star reviewers very much either. :)

... I could go on and on AND ON with reasons of why to avoid this fiasco of a show because I have BARELY BEGUN to even SCRATCH the SURFACE of all that is wrong on and with 'The Idol', but I feel as if I have already devoted more minutes of my life on it than it will ever hope to warrant.

HBO, THIS was a MISS.

Either by design or unexpectedly, I always find myself coming back to this film every few years, and every few years when I see it, I can't help but watch it two or three times in a row until the cycle begins again. Every time the cycle begins again, I can't help but be moved.

As someone who made the decision to give up pursuing professional and competition dance in order to pursue what some would term an actual money-making 'career', A Chorus Line (for all the cheesiness some would see in it), speaks deeply to me. This is furthered by the fact that each character's story is based on REAL events, as shared by real-life dancers and actors. That said, the very nature of these characters, standing on a bare line, giving it all they have and waiting to be judged and then accepted or rejected based on the need, whim or desire of another, speaks not only to and of these dancers, but to every person who has stood on that metaphorical line in LIFE. Somehow, this very 80's, somewhat grainy, somewhat imperfect film, makes that argument.

Putting aside that it is based off of the 1975 musical stage production that went on to win Tony Award after Tony Award along with a Pulitzer, this film stands on its own despite the many flaws it has. (Flaws that unfortunately, have become more glaring as it has aged). Still, it is the bare-bones HUMANITY at its core, that drove the musical production to explode, and it is what carries this 1985 film. Its amazing (and to me, improved) score; the delicious and curtailed choreography; and the heartfelt stand-alone stories, told more times than not through catchy, sing-along tunes; will continue to carry it for years to come. In fact, here we are, almost FORTY years after its release, and we're still watching it and talking about it. Downvote all the positive, high-score reviews you want, but that is FACT.

If you haven't seen this, don't be put off by the stage-production "PURISTS" (OF COURSE A LIVE VIEWING will most certainly always surpass a filmed version of anything), who left so much at the altar of the original/live show, that they had no more to feel. Treat yourself. It isn't perfect and it has aged, but it has also become the classic it should be.

First off, I am a bit impressed and encouraged by television offerings lately. ...Well okay, two or three series come immediately to mind.

Love & Death is one of them.

At first, my husband and I weren't too interested in watching this perhaps because neither of us knew much about the case it is based on. After seeing it pop up as a choice a few times, however, we figured 'what the heck', and began watching. While parts of Episode 1 actually felt a bit "icky" (for lack of a better term), I am so glad we stuck with it, and by the next day, I couldn't wait to get home in order to to pick up where we had left off at episode three.

To begin, the soundtrack at least for the first half or more of the series, is a MASTERFUL collection of tunes from the 70's and 80's, and which work perfectly to add to the feeling that you are watching this dark series unfold firsthand. In fact, IMO, the only thing within Love & Death that rivals how excellent the music is for most of the first few episodes, is how exceptional Elizabeth Olsen is in her riveting portrayal of Candy Montgomery. That is not to say that rest of the cast's acting was not top-notch or that the rest of the series is not good, it is just difficult not to notice how much Elizabeth Olsen stands far and above here. This Elizabeth Olsen is tiers from the one you may have seen in anything else. To say her range is incredible, would be an understatement. Not too far behind in accolades, should be Lily Rabe who it was nice to see again, and who also wonderfully, convincingly, and definingly portrays the role of Betty Gore. Jesse Plemons as a love interest is the only casting choice I found a bit problematic.

In as far as the story, it unfolds ... engagingly. What's funny (strange), not funny (haha), is that while the episodes are an hour long, each felt much longer. This normally happens when something isn't paced well or isn't interesting enough to keep one's full attention, but neither was the case here. The series, which revolves around what occured before and after a certain true-life incident, is both compelling and flows well.

A recommended watch.

7.4 / 10, but a 7 just seemed too low.

-----------------------------------------------------

Encouraged by reviews here which mentioned the Hulu version, we thought: "GREAT! Something BETTER than Love & Death?!? Let's see it!" Well ... don't fall for the hype. It was very nonlinear, and quite dull, both in color and story progression.

Relatos Salvajes (or Wild Tales in English), a film made up of short but vivid vignettes about the human 'condition', is one of my favorite films. To quote myself: "Not only is the acting fantastic, but every single one of the stories paints a picture of each of us at our most gloriously, base, human-like moments." In THAT regard, while both works are unrelated, I thought that I would enjoy "Beef" when I first heard about it, and in fact, figured it would be a "continuation" (of sorts) of one of the stories depicted in Wild Tales. As it is, it turned out to be so much more.

While it isn't perfect, and it bogs down momentarily in places, as a whole, Beef DELIVERS. The hardships of trying to get things done in this day and age when things should be easier to accomplish, yet seem almost harder to do sometimes, rings much too true and close for comfort throughout this series ... but for the very same reason, it is like gripping one of those enlarging mirrors, and you can't look away. While I both hated and liked them, I mostly felt FOR and LIKE these very flawed, but entirely human PEOPLE - and wound up binge-watching all 10 episodes.

I was not entirely crazy about every casting choice until the very end, but the acting is good, the pacing is alright and the score is nice. I enjoyed Steven Yeun so much in TWD, that it was great to see him in something really good; and truly, it is SO very good. In fact, the story is excellent. I am seldom surprised by what a character does next or the way a story unfolds, but I was unprepared for what 'happened next' quite a few times in this series. I liked that.

The creators could have ended this in dozens of ways, many of which would have been quite satisfying. How they did choose to, while possibly seemingly 'trite' on paper, was perfection.

8.9/10.

Shailene Woodley has never stood out, (to me), in any particularly noteworthy way as an actor. Actually, that sounds a lot harsher than intended. In more courteous terminology, she has always executed her roles well, but never enough in my estimation, to count as an actor who I would deliberately look forward to seeing in films - until now.

In "To Catch A Killer" she delivers such a strong and believable performance as a precarious beat officer, that she practically steals the spotlight. Here, I have to draw your attention to the word "practically", because in this film, Woodley is paired with Ben Mendelsohn who also delivers such a successfully rich, compelling and powerful depiction of an aging and enervated senior FBI detective, that it is difficult to tell who outdoes the other with and within the efficacy of their roles. To me, they kind of throw the torch (or baton) of excellence to one another, scene by scene.

As if the near-perfect delivery and chemistry of the leads was not enough, despite some of the token villainous characters and scenarios being a bit over-the-top, the acting by most everyone else was also above-average. This is especially true of Ralph Ineson, who was simply, low-key great.

My biggest and mostly only complaint upon first-viewing, was that a little over 3/4's of the way through, the film kind of changes direction a bit, which made the ending feel uneven and somewhat unfulfilling. In RETROSPECT, however, I think that the way it took somewhat of a shift might be the best thing they could have done with it. Had they gone in any other direction, it would be much too easy to chalk this up as a film which ended in a predictable or 'done before' manner.

As it is, To Catch a Killer ended the way it began: as a solid, stand-alone feature that was immersive, tense and thought-provoking through and through.

7.8/10.

To begin, I would watch Rebecca Ferguson in anything, because everything that she is in, she makes better. She's my spirit animal, and who I dream of being when I grow up. ;)

Not only is she physically beautiful, but she is one of the best actresses working today. She has the uncanny ability to transport the viewer in what would seem an effortless way, into believing she is ANYONE she is portraying, and beyond that, make you FEEL what that character is feeling. She is ... magic.

Knowing my mindset, you would perhaps think I might be a bit biased toward and with my praise of Silo.

Well, so would I, except that for the entire first episode Ms. Ferguson was nowhere on screen. Despite this, and despite this being on Apple (yuck), Silo as a whole, managed to weave such an immersive, good story, at a perfect pace, with just enough intrigue and arc, that it took hold and now I MUST see how it unfolds. Despite the general "premise" having been dabbled with before, the creators have managed to make it original enough and compelling enough where this warrants watching. In fact, within only three episodes, it met, and possibly exceeded, that bar that as a Sci-Fi lover I have set at "pretty high".

I can hardly wait for the next episode.

7.8/10.

Take that in every way that it is meant:

1. WHY, J-Lo; WHY do you keep making movies?

2. Why, oh why J-Lo, out of all available actresses?

3. Why J-Lo as a viewing choice?

Do you know of anyone, ever, who you can recall saying: "Hey, let's go catch the new J-Lo flick that just came out". I don't.

There was a television show I caught once with J-Lo starring, and it was not bad. It wasn't very memorable either, however, since I don't remember what it was called. A FILM star, no matter how many films she is in, she will never be. (Of course, just watch her win some acting award in twenty years and prove me wrong). :)

The best description for this latest cliched borefest, The Mother, would best be: FORCED. Forced plot; forced acting; forced self-funded(?) vanity project to stay relevant? Not sure about the last one, but my head can't wrap around how it is that she is still cast in films.

Lastly, I know it sounds as if I am placing the entire blame for this film not being particularly watch-worthy on J-Lo's shoulders, and that is not what I intended. The film drops the ball in almost every area.

Sorry :(, but this one is a suggested 'skip'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and lastly, those who are downvoting those of us who are properly rating this a 4-or-below, REALLY need to go watch the TV SHOW "Silo" so as to let Rebecca Ferguson treat them to a Master Class in what ACTING should be.