H2Hs
Joined Jul 2016
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews12
H2Hs's rating
I started this show for the ratings, at first I thought it's good, but I failed to see what the fuss is all about but what kept me going to be honest - yes, I know it sounds very juvenile - is Anna Torv's face, there I said it! I mean you have to keep watching if the show has what must be the most beautiful woman on earth, right?
Anyway by the end of season 1 things started to change, the plot starts to thicken - a whole lot - and ladies & gentlemen, John Noble (Walter Bishop) started to shine. He must have played one of the best father/mad-scientist roles I saw. His emotions were elegant but pure, quirky but deeply human, he literally stole the camera at every shot he's in. I loved him. And then you stay for the story you're now invested in and the complications and creativity it achieves nearly at every episode. And of course there's still Anna Torv, OMG!!
I'm glad I bumped into this old gem. Thankfully, IMDB ratings still can be indicative.
Anyway by the end of season 1 things started to change, the plot starts to thicken - a whole lot - and ladies & gentlemen, John Noble (Walter Bishop) started to shine. He must have played one of the best father/mad-scientist roles I saw. His emotions were elegant but pure, quirky but deeply human, he literally stole the camera at every shot he's in. I loved him. And then you stay for the story you're now invested in and the complications and creativity it achieves nearly at every episode. And of course there's still Anna Torv, OMG!!
I'm glad I bumped into this old gem. Thankfully, IMDB ratings still can be indicative.
I'm really glad I watched this movie before reading its reviews. I simply loved it, it's even one of the very rare romance movies I ever recommended to friends. I loved the acting, the story, the dialog, some of it was very thought provoking. It's a beautiful movie, beautifully made with fascinating flawed characters. I wouldn't say it's even sad, it's just .. beautiful. Chk it out and you'll know what I mean.
I totally understand the fuss about the pace and the delayed plot reveal, I probably was able to enjoy it coz I still possess the necessary capacity to .. um .. wait for the story to build up? Not an easy trait with a tictok attention span.
I totally understand the fuss about the pace and the delayed plot reveal, I probably was able to enjoy it coz I still possess the necessary capacity to .. um .. wait for the story to build up? Not an easy trait with a tictok attention span.
Let me first start stating the fact that these few hours are probably the best shooting sequences I ever saw anywhere, not because of its flow or smoothness only but also just for the sheer appreciation for the effort, the planning, the coordination, the crews obvious discipline and the flawless execution ... bravo .. exceptional work.
But ... what's the point here?
I feel like the director has set this bar for himself that no body asked for, it took such a huge effort I'm sure and it was brilliantly done, but I failed to see how this gimmick had served the story? I mean I would imagine if it was shot normally IMO to be honest I feel it would have even gave my brain more space to focus on the story and the brilliant acting instead of just looking at the scene flow imagining how it was all orchestrated?
Anyway I think if you're in the movie business you will appreciate watching this new concept in shooting the scenes from a technical perspective - as most enjoyed it obviously from the reviews - but if you're an average viewer like me who's just looking for a good storytelling then unfortunately I'd give the story 6 or 7/10 max, and I'm being generous here just for the impeccable acting.
But ... what's the point here?
I feel like the director has set this bar for himself that no body asked for, it took such a huge effort I'm sure and it was brilliantly done, but I failed to see how this gimmick had served the story? I mean I would imagine if it was shot normally IMO to be honest I feel it would have even gave my brain more space to focus on the story and the brilliant acting instead of just looking at the scene flow imagining how it was all orchestrated?
Anyway I think if you're in the movie business you will appreciate watching this new concept in shooting the scenes from a technical perspective - as most enjoyed it obviously from the reviews - but if you're an average viewer like me who's just looking for a good storytelling then unfortunately I'd give the story 6 or 7/10 max, and I'm being generous here just for the impeccable acting.