Alexandra E

I vaguely remember the hype around the release of this movie, but from the ratings and other comments, you might think it was overhyped.

That being said, less than 20% of kids experience bullying and less than 5% experience extreme bullying. And YES, that means most kids follow a bully or are just thankful it isn't them. The ratings reflects that part of society that is the chiropractor Greg in this film. Friends with the bully that allow the bully to go too far. And for all the bullies that never get called on it? Well, just like in the film, they often just keep doing it just like the Simon character (Bateman) here does. Never ending.

It eludes to the wife enduring a lot of lies and why the new start in California, but I think it might have been better to open with more of what lead up to the move, so she could be a more sympathetic character. The drugs issue was clearly a bigger part of the move, but we never get to connect with her at that level. Multiple lines in the movie elude to her being just as much a victim of the bully as the other two her husband bullied.

But the rest, the idea that the bullied, in this case 2 of them, might react to being lied about and bullied basically in a more vengeful way than we see the bullied normally react, well, I think that accounts for the low score. A lot of bullies out there and even more of those Gregs out there who definitely wouldn't want to feel the wrath of vengeance the bullied might bare upon them if they look back at what they did or allowed to happen to others just to save their own skin.

Jason Bateman, Rebecca Hull and Joel Edgerton do phenomenal jobs. And the directing is great. Was it due the "scary" movie hype? No, but that was not what I saw in the trailer so I don't know what half these comments are claiming. It is a twisty thriller. No blood and guts, no secret bombs, no Freddie Krueger stuff. Just something very Orson Welles about it. You don't get the final answer, very Rosebud-esque. Was he, wasn't he? Fantastic story.

9.6/10. Again just felt like more could've been done with the wife's character in the lead up so her character was more sympathetic, but it stands without it well enough.

This was an okay movie. It was slow, like most movies of this type. It's also the A typical southern story with abusive men, isolation for anyone that doesn't fit the very tight standards they employ even today to make everyone conform, and the sad realization at the end before her true love ever realizes that she was in fact the killer. Because yeah that's how abusive relationships end... almost never.

I'm getting sick of strong women being portrayed as murders, because women have to be defective in some way, shape or form to be strong. Just nauseating. in the USA, especially in the south, you have to be defective to be strong. Couldn't be the nasty fiancee after she found out about his affair, which only a total idiot wouldn't have known about, flinging the ring in swamp girl's face.... But not in the south. Couldn't possibly be the weak minded idiot who followed and enforced those nasty stereotypes and egged on those rumors.

I rated it a 5 because the performances were great, the story was not predictable (maybe the book is better), but there was too much foreshadowing to miss it was very possible it was her. Oh good maybe the southerners and the rest of the USA realize not to pick on those they don't understand? Yeah, except this trash reinforces their stereotypes by ending exactly how the shallow town did.

5 for the acting. It's okay, but expect all the small southern town stereotypes to be fully reinforced, climaxing with yeah she did it.

First, I'm not much of a horror movie fan, nor really a vampire story fan. It's not as horrific as other Dracula movies and it focuses on the introduction of the story that often gets neglected or completely ignored. How Dracula gets out of Eastern Europe. Another review said it twisted the boat part of the book. Really it makes up portions of it because it wasn't much of the original story.

That all being stated, the effects are quite good, especially knowing the budget was limited. The actors were good, although there was too little about most of the surrounding characters for as much as they appeared. Felt like that needed to be developed more in order for you to care what happened to them. The actors were very good, surprisingly, but with so many bit parts, had to be bad.

I feel like the end would've been tied back to the beginning better. There was no need for the makeup version of Dracula with the cane already exposed earlier on. It would've been more poetic to return to the beginning appearance. The film certainly tried to give those "moralistic" lessons with the girl and the doctor, even with the captain. So that was a bit of a let down. The idea of Dracula is of course that he can hide in plain sight in a human form. The "moral" even an attractive young man could be evil. A small miss but still, a miss. Feel like that alone would've bounced it up to a 7 or 8 for me, since I like those "meaningful" movies better.

I would think for a true horror junkie this won't have enough horror, maybe a 3 at best. Suspense fans. maybe the 7.

Me, eh. 6/10. Just missed the mark at the end.

ARE YOU KIDDING US? Why do we spend so much time with the Disney princess rather than the Doctor. i seriously was not a big fan when they did this crap to Jodie Whitiker's Doctor but now it's getting damn annoying. We need to get to know the new DOCTOR, not the damn sidekick. The sidekick story is supposed to be the background from episode to episode, not the damn starring role.

Less than 60 secons of the Doctor the entire episode. This is utter shit. Katr Lethbridge Stewart shows up magically with zero explanation how Ruby even knew to get ahold of a secret agency she wouldn't know anything about yet. Just stupid as hell. and as if it couldn't get dumber? Kate and UNIT get brainwashed also even without direct contact. We never find out where the help the Doctor went to.

AND somehow when the Doctor reappears he magically knew something he didn't know from the beginning? Hokey as hell. No matter how much Disney has their own people commenting that was a good Doctor Who episode.

The episode is interesting but again NOT DOCTOR WHO. Just Disney princess takeover.

3 only because the story, in spite of the flaws was okay. Disney Goosebumps episode 17th the Tardis in frame a couple times.

0 for real Doctor Who fans.

UGH.... The comments from people singing the film's and story's praises while still not getting it.

Even liberal white America trying so hard to look like they understand but still just pretending to. I gave it a 9 because I knew what these reviews would look like. There are always only two choices with the mass majority of white America. Liberal contrived "magnificent" or hate mongering hating on "woke".

JUST ONCE TRY TO SEE this is literally about how white America just pushes its view of minorities onto them and continuously pander to each other. Look how "unracist I am" while at that same time out of the other side of their face talking to the white racist "can we find common ground?". The common ground stays the same. Negative black stereotypes. Negative minority stereotypes.

The film is really good. The message is there are over 1/3 of black America that is educated. There is 2/3 of black America that isn't from the ghettos. So why is white America so hell bent on patting themselves on the back when they still say stupid shit like this only represents a "sliver" of the black American population? Because they're still racist as hell and refusing to admit it.

9/10. You would have to end this with Wesley Snipes pointing a gun at the audience and shooting at them, the screen going red, and they still wouldn't get it. 10 would be even one of the white idiots in the screen getting it, but of course that can't happen in white America.

I've always preferred the old 60s Stones and especially Paint It Black. While much acclaim has always been given to the Richards/Jagger songwriting duo, I feel they lost something with the exit of Jones they never recovered.

I think the tragedy of Jones life is covered fairly well in this documentary thanks to Bill Wyman, but at the same time, I feel he left a lot out that might color the views of Richards and Jagger and his they behaved at the time. It's covered, but there's very little about how toxic Andrew Oldman was to their success. It also is extremely unfair that very little was included from the Hendrix recordings. While nothing came of those tapes, not including anyone that knew both men seems more like downplaying intentionally the very thing that could be considered amazing successes of Brian playing with Hendrix and honestly even the Beatles.

Even more ironic is how even in reflecting, seems only Wyman was willing to even beat about the musical talent, with extraordinary effort to make it sound like Jones never tapped that talent. You can hear the drastic shift with Jones exit, the spark went commercial. As Madonna said once of her stage shows, sex sells and that's pretty much all the Stones were after Jones. Commercial garbage with just a couple truly memorable songs after.

What makes music spectacular isn't just being able to put it to paper, but that strange thing that comes from freeform. And why the Lemonheads version of "Mrs. Robinson" is better than the original. It's a downright shame they didn't know this then, and maybe don't even now.

It's just a shame that so many lives ended in tragedy back then. And the toxicity of Anita is downplayed while sharing a pic of Brian dressed as a Nazi.... when she was the German- Italian. It clearly downplayed this because Richards was with her for so long, but obviously reeked havoc.

8/10. Interesting for a true fan of Jones or the Stones, but I think a bit misleading in certain sections. The victors get to write the history and all that.

It's comical to read most of the male commenters just shread this. It is based on a real case, so cry babies about this isn't real world, too boring for them, she's a whatever, just comical how desperate pathetic men always feel like they have to advertise. Racism still exists. Misogyny still exists. Denying it just means these men are the racists and misogynists.

So on to the review:

I'm a huge fan of Peter Capaldi, and he truly delivers a first rate performance. You really never know throughout is he a bad guy or not. It's clear he didn't want to close cases the way this one was by the 2nd to last episode, but the final twist will take it full circle. Capaldi plays the character so well. I'm still wondering where did the character go wrong? No one is perfect, but at the same time, you leave feeling like he crossed so many lines. How many lines are too many?

There's some great elements and depth to his character, whereas the female character is basically the same as he is, just female. She's breaking rules to prove they did something wrong. She's right, but it's in stark contrast to his breaking rules when he was wrong. There's a couple deep underlying concepts. Is it really okay for a woman to be like a man? As I already pointed out, a lot of the whiny men commenting prove they still love that double standard. The other is about men being vulnerable. Every male character in this is written quite well, with depth. It's still pretty rare to see men exposed with crying, questioning themselves, or admitting to mistakes.

9/10. The female characters other than the lead female had very little into the back story. That might have been done better.

Episode 6....Swanson and the Staff Sargent put this all in motion. A huge can of CYA. The Staff Sargent being dumb enough not to realize Swanson is the entire reason CID ever shoved the threat of murder charges in his face is either he's dumb as hell or he was in cahoots. it's written all over Swenson's face. They look at the pardon as an admission of "guilt" so their whole cover their own asses worked great.....

While none of them should've been charged, until they admit they lied to save their own skins, may they continue to supposedly suffer until they admit that they lowered themselves to blame the new guy and helped Swanson create the scapegoat the brass was looking for, just because he was the gay guy.

The fact Lorance still displays what role his sexually played in this, just means he's not going to be able to fix anything either.

1 thru 5:

ADD: The kicker is at NO TIME does this SHITTY documentary team point out this young man was a senior NCO (non-commissioned officer/ aka. senior enlisted) seeing heavy fire in Iraq just a couple years before this incident. IT IS THE underlying PROOF the entire team that testified against him was lying. HOLY SHIT. Irresponsible doesn't even begin to explain it...

...you literally have to pause the letters in the 5th episode and read them to know this. A major FUBAR.

ORIGINAL:

If you want to see how gays are treated in the military normally, this is a great case.

1. Right wing religious zealots who believe it's a sin, so child joins military to hide it.
2. Homophobic brass who transfers a star soldier to the most hazardous frontline almost as soon as they realize he's gay.
3. Brass threatening all the gay guy's men with murder charges themselves if they don't fall in line. (The Staff Sargent both dumb enough to make derogatory gay comments in court and admit he was threatened with me charges.)
4. A unit that only had 3 days with the gay guy, so ZERO loyalty to him.

5. The men then bold faced lying since even their previous LT said no easy he would allow a motorcycle near them. (You would have to be a total idiot to not realize at that point this LT did exactly what the previous one would've done ) They knew this guy in person for ONLY 3 DAYS. They talk like they knew him forever. Red flag.

6. Most importantly, when in combat, the stories NEVER match up as well as these guys written statements and continued statements do. NEVER. There's a lot going on. They scramble into positions. Each view should be off slightly from the ones closest to each other. The guy who supposedly turned the gay LT in conveniently never testified? BIG RED FLAG.

(Weirdest is throughout that Staff Sargent just always seems so pleased with himself. It's creepy and extremely telling. It's not a guy with any guilt and that's neon sign who was the actual ring leader in this group. He's pulled a lot of these strings from start to finish. )

NVM the 1st attorney obviously thinking the gay guy was guilty. NVM the 2nd set trying to ignore that while it really is the crux of why all this happened in the first place.

Dumbest? Right wing zealots taking a gay man's story to Fox and thinking that would help. ONLY complete morons would not realize Hannity was saying let that gay guy rot as soon as the camera was off.

It's not even a comedy of errors. He's a gay man who was targeted because he was gay and these guys "guilt" is because they know they are lying.

The 3 rating?

It really is overkill how hard they push the version that this team told. Again just too obvious they're lying for self preservation reasons. The Staff Sargent just too cocky about it. He saved his own ass and he would do it again.

The attempt to humanize the story just muddled up what was blatantly a bunch of anti-gay people pretending that isn't the reason he's there.