WatchingInDarkness
Joined Dec 2012
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
WatchingInDarkness's rating
The plots, effects, script, storyline, and most of all, the acting, make you wish for death, any death.
Those responsible. Those participating. Those funding or producing. Those alleging to act. Your own, failing all others.
This movie would isn't even bearable with the volume off. It screams foreign film, the kind that has some unobservant director trying to replicate what they think American cinema is. It is so bad, it feels like a South American soap opera.
Not only should you never watch it, you should destroy any copy you might find in a thrift store or lying about in a yard sale. Do it for humanity.
I personally did not enjoy the film.
Those responsible. Those participating. Those funding or producing. Those alleging to act. Your own, failing all others.
This movie would isn't even bearable with the volume off. It screams foreign film, the kind that has some unobservant director trying to replicate what they think American cinema is. It is so bad, it feels like a South American soap opera.
Not only should you never watch it, you should destroy any copy you might find in a thrift store or lying about in a yard sale. Do it for humanity.
I personally did not enjoy the film.
About the only thing the script got right was the degree that siblings can differ and fight. There were so many over the top elements thrown in that it resembled the hyperbole found in 1930's cartoons.
One example is the trip to the motel in Branson. The clerk was looking at some online image that was implying he was deviant, possibly with children, and then was wearing mascara and a dog sex collar at work as a hotel clerk. Whereas the intent was likely to make the clerk appear absurd and outrageous, his subsequent sex pitch to the brothers was definitely a type of homophobia that apparently was just fine with the director, producer, screenwriter, and actors. Gays are not predatory freaks, and should not be depicted as some human rejects in predatory mode. Shame on this movies. Not funny in the least. SMH.
One example is the trip to the motel in Branson. The clerk was looking at some online image that was implying he was deviant, possibly with children, and then was wearing mascara and a dog sex collar at work as a hotel clerk. Whereas the intent was likely to make the clerk appear absurd and outrageous, his subsequent sex pitch to the brothers was definitely a type of homophobia that apparently was just fine with the director, producer, screenwriter, and actors. Gays are not predatory freaks, and should not be depicted as some human rejects in predatory mode. Shame on this movies. Not funny in the least. SMH.
An erstwhile fan of the series, it is with chagrin that I report how bad the final movie was. The experience reminds me of visiting some beloved childhood place -- a store, a theater, a school, or a home -- and finding it utterly in disrepair and dirty. The director seems to have just phoned it in.
The previews hinted at it, as Hugh Bonneville stood out with a tanned face and hands that could only be explained if he had served a term of tour in India. It was distracting in every scene in which he appeared, completely inconsistent with his character and with English gentlemen in England. Field hands in the American South got less sun. It's baffling why this wasn't fixed with makeup. It was as much of an anachronism as a Walkman.
The filming was also lacking in the lighting that made the series an indulgence in nostalgia for an era that never was. It was too bright, and almost gritty. The difference stood out from the very first scenes.
Characters also lacked their depth so carefully developed over the series' long years. Script and plot and dynamics reduced them to little more than caricatures, almost to the point of tableaus.
Plot "twists" were not only not twists, but were trite, Broadway musicalesque developments that were more implausible than a pair of romantic dogs eating a spaghetti dinner in an Italian restaurant. I'm avoiding spoilers, but after seeing it, you'll have to agree that the outlandish events reduced the story rather than extending it.
Even casting was amiss. The mainstay of Downton has been to introduce new romances and dashing or beautiful interlopers, neither of which were correctly cast here. There was a subplot for an upstairs affair but the actor wasn't credible as a romantic foil for the woman he was paired with. The gay subplot was equally weak, without so much as a hug between presumed lovers-to-be. Unrequited love seems to have become replaced with unnecessary contact for the plot.
And, coming to IMDB, it is baffling to find the American release date almost a month after the rest of the world, which seems some kind of issue, especially in light of the complete lack of any American star or actor to bridge the large market here with the UK's. The series did not ignore that element.
The audience here was VERY slow to warm to the story this time, and never really reacted until a scene in which a downstairs character gives a plucky encouraging speech to one of the elite characters, which is very late in the story. Mind you, this was a room full of Downton fans.
This movie should be withdrawn from circulation. It is an unwelcome as Julie Andrews' topless scene in S. O. B., and undoes years of earned affection for the stories.
The previews hinted at it, as Hugh Bonneville stood out with a tanned face and hands that could only be explained if he had served a term of tour in India. It was distracting in every scene in which he appeared, completely inconsistent with his character and with English gentlemen in England. Field hands in the American South got less sun. It's baffling why this wasn't fixed with makeup. It was as much of an anachronism as a Walkman.
The filming was also lacking in the lighting that made the series an indulgence in nostalgia for an era that never was. It was too bright, and almost gritty. The difference stood out from the very first scenes.
Characters also lacked their depth so carefully developed over the series' long years. Script and plot and dynamics reduced them to little more than caricatures, almost to the point of tableaus.
Plot "twists" were not only not twists, but were trite, Broadway musicalesque developments that were more implausible than a pair of romantic dogs eating a spaghetti dinner in an Italian restaurant. I'm avoiding spoilers, but after seeing it, you'll have to agree that the outlandish events reduced the story rather than extending it.
Even casting was amiss. The mainstay of Downton has been to introduce new romances and dashing or beautiful interlopers, neither of which were correctly cast here. There was a subplot for an upstairs affair but the actor wasn't credible as a romantic foil for the woman he was paired with. The gay subplot was equally weak, without so much as a hug between presumed lovers-to-be. Unrequited love seems to have become replaced with unnecessary contact for the plot.
And, coming to IMDB, it is baffling to find the American release date almost a month after the rest of the world, which seems some kind of issue, especially in light of the complete lack of any American star or actor to bridge the large market here with the UK's. The series did not ignore that element.
The audience here was VERY slow to warm to the story this time, and never really reacted until a scene in which a downstairs character gives a plucky encouraging speech to one of the elite characters, which is very late in the story. Mind you, this was a room full of Downton fans.
This movie should be withdrawn from circulation. It is an unwelcome as Julie Andrews' topless scene in S. O. B., and undoes years of earned affection for the stories.