Tcarts76

This series was pretty good but most of it boils down to one reason. A great job casting Bel Powley.

Overall the series pulls you in and by the time it is over you really don't realize it is overall fairly bland. It focuses in on Bel Powley's character who works for Mr. Frank and ends up hiding him and his family including the now tragic iconic Anne Frank during World War II and the occupation of Holland.

Most of it is rather bland overpromising and under delivering. Bel Powley's performance though, steals all the oxygen from the more pedestrianess of the series and makes you want to tune in,. She is a bright, lively, young woman and makes you care about her, the dilemmas she, her husband, and the Frank's face. You still root for them even though you know the outcome already which is sometimes a difficult thing to achieve.

My only big problem is that this series is really bland sometimes feeling superficial and doesn't do justices to highlighting just the difficulties of day to day life with the deprivations of the war beyond some difficulties in hiding jews.

We seem to have a lot of Ben Affleck and Matt Damon fans on IMDB because they will give a whole lot of stars on name alone. I'm convinced a lot of reviewers really didn't watch this. The end scene is about the only part worth watching so fast forward, watch 10-20 minutes and you have seen the best this one has to offer, other than a Queen of Spain joke somewhere in the middle (I won't say what it pertains too so I don't have to check the spoiler box).

I guess you could pause to laugh at Matt Damon with a mullet, and Ben Affleck with blonde hair acting as gay as most medieval French noblemen probably were but this movie is dull and too long. You really don't need to see the same story three times and how in the F word did they get Ridley Scott to put his name to a 2 1/2 hour snoozefest,

Oh, I get it. Some people out there can cheer and give 9-10 stars for a "daring group trying something new," but shouldn't that "new" be entertaining or interesting? The best we can now do for a daring attempt is a pile of turd with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck not even attempting a British or French accent. Please, atleast if they tried to do that it could be a complete comedy and I could give it 5 stars...

No, it's 3 stars from this peasant. If you can watch the whole thing without fast forward you either have never seen a decent movie before or you deserve to be knighted yourself. It's only two steps better than being waterboarded. I'm much more upset people are messing with us by giving it 7 stars and up.

I guess this pandemic has ruined everyone's taste in everything, including, movies.

The first warning sign was that Trace Adkins was in this movie. He had a small role and didn't talk so much so he didn't hurt this one. I took the chance watching it because of the high marks it had (7.8 out of 10 at the time I am writing). What a mistake!

Steven Dorff is the only believable role. Everyone else failed. The script wasn't good to begin with, and the lines sounded like a second to last dress rehearsal. It has a bit of action but it was sparse.

The real problem is that it seems someone watched "Unforgiven" and decided that if they made it they would use a really well known outlaw. That is about all the thought that went into this. Obviously they didn't spend money getting a good scripts and actors were mediocre.

The Unforgiven was a masterpiece whose mostly boredom was played to great dramatic effect making the end well worth the wait. The contrast was sharp and biting. It made you spend most of the movie plotting a bad review but after the cpntrasting action you left ready to level the house of anyone who has wronged you and cheer gleefully. This movie does none of that.

Don't be fooled, this movie is a 3.