Reviews

What's with all these critics here comparing "Allied" with the 1942 classic "Casablanca"? Just because early scenes are set in Casablanca, according to many reviewers here, then the films are obviously closely related as can be seen by the "many references and similarities to 'Casablanca'". Excuse me, but have I missed something - I cannot name even one character or incident in "Allied" that can be compared with those in the 1942 film. Not one!

Please help me out here - I'm absolutely perplexed by the insinuations made by those who come across as know-nothing know-alls.

Oh, and must every two human beings who have a loving relationship exude this so called chemistry? The absence of flying sparks, according to reviewers here, definitely spells failure and any such portrayal on screen points assuredly to lousy acting by those involved!

Some need to appreciate life as it is, not what they think it should be.

Overall, a most entertaining and meaningful film about love and war.

Unfortunately, a number of reviewers here seem to have chosen to view this mesmerising movie with pre-conceptions of how a musical biop must be presented. Some apparently will accept nothing less than highlighting, in chronological order, incidents from the life of the subject, in this case, the King of Rock n' Roll. And this must not be encroached upon with any substantial side-issues such as the mismanagement of Elvis' career by the Colonel, his career-long manager. Especially if the anti-hero speaks with a funny accent and is portrayed by an actor who is heavily made-up to resemble the real character - goodness me, Hanks' performance is totally against character and one of his best ever!

The Australian director has chosen a different approach with the Colonel as narrator and villain producing a biop which touches on bigger themes than a young man's rise to superstar status and eventual demise. And in using not only Elvis' music but more recent tunes in an imaginative way the result is a dazzling spectacle of sound.

Revealing the story of Elvis' rise cannot be done accurately without the the insidious presence of Colonel Parker. Consider the latter's influence - Elvis' enlistment in the regular army and not some Special Service position; Elvis' marriage; the financial deals; the film contracts and what many consider a negative, the curtailing of international performances. The latter of course was the consequence of Parker's abiding fear that he would be identified as an illegal citizen.

To be truthful I found the depiction and motives of the Colonel of much interest because the general public has a wide-ranging knowledge of the King's life and career more so than the ubiquitous Colonel Parker. So to linger on the significance of Parker's character in this movie so critically is, in my opinion, nit-picking.

Austin Butler is the very best of screen portrayals of the King. It may well be seen as the definitive film characterisation of Elvis. Butler's performance is universally acclaimed as intense, electrifying and full of bravura, making the movie "Elvis" amongst the very best of musical biopics.

For the magnificent production values, costuming, direction, camera work and music, this movie deserves more than a nod for next year's Oscars.

I'm very grateful for the reviewer here who pointed out that John Wick killed 73 persons whilst 8 others lost their lives during this movie's plot.

Most critics here seem to agree the slaughter was carried out stylishly but I'm not satisfied it was done in an efficient manner. Why shoot somebody, seemingly at least twice through vital organs only to slavishly follow this up with a bullet to the head? Must admit though that the splotch of red which ensued made the dark interior scenes much more colourful.

Fascinating.

Since I'm only the sixth person to comment on this excruciatingly awful film, I've read and recalled the five previous critiques.

Sadly, the reviewer from 1999 has learnt that Michael Sutton will never "..be the next Johnny Depp"! In fact he no longer appears in films and has not done so for many years. Oh, and the same reviewer asserting this was a nice clean family movie must have missed the steamy sexual encounter in the opening credits!

I think the remaining four reviewers were spot on in describing 'Wanted" as contrived with characters who served merely as stereotypes. I thought the acting was quite mediocre which made the contrived plot even more obvious.

However, this could actually develop a following as a cult movie because with repeated viewings I'm sure many will be entertained with the multiplicity of gaffes, ludicrous plot moves and the banalities in the script and characterisation.

Frankly, I'm very surprised that I was able to watch this movie in its entirety.

Have so far watched three episodes and have desperately been trying to like this series. But when at every turn you have to put up with the whining and often incoherent 'breaking of the fourth wall' by Annika, it's difficult to appreciate the normally excellent Nicola Walker. It doesn't help that Annika is not a particularly likeable person with an even more unlikeable daughter. Is this relationship the pivotal aspect of the series? If so I'll not make it past episode 4.

Overall the plots so far have been pretty tepid and the supporting characters have not much to offer. Even DCI Oban, with her attempt at humorous self-deprecation, remains fairly wooden.

A number of reviewers here chastise those of us who rate this series so poorly and seem to think that the quirkiness of having Annika address the camera, the presence of the petulant daughter, the references to Nordic mythology and sea-faring characters and the general very low-key participation of almost all characters somehow make this a vibrant and fresh approach to a crime series.

Can't see how. The preponderance of the unimpressed viewers here is hard to ignore. It is indeed very disappointing.

Spontaneous laughter from me when the very first review of this movie centred on whether guns, tanks, uniforms and all related war paraphenalia was actually the genuine article. Honestly, these people who write reviews just to criticize the props used, especially in war movies, need a thorough medical check-up. The great majority of viewers don't know or don't care or both about accurate portrayal of props!

Anyway this movie purposely it seems was so full of anachronisms it appears futile to engage in a serious debate about the obsessions of the 'accurate' brigade.

I did not enjoy the over-the-top performances of some characters and would have far more appreciated this movie as a serious heist during war time.

It's not fair that you only understand the nuances of a movie's screen play once you have read other people's interpretations, such as appear on this site.

That was the position I was in, waiting for the dreaded Nazis to appear in their modern day uniforms. Worse still, I did not understand why in the hell a narrator played such a prominent role - and I'm vexed that it was not until near the completion of the film that the identity of the narrator was revealed.

And I'm equally upset that at no time did I think that 'Transit' may have similar themes related to 'Casablanca'! So many reviews here take it for granted that I should have known this.

Not knowing any of these things nor anything about the writer/director or the novel on which 'Transit' was based, I can only recommend this movie as being fairly dull, lacking empathy for the great majority of the characters, slow and lacking any point unless you have attended the masterclass prior to watching ....I just didn't know what others find so obvious!

I well remember the antics of McEnroe and despite what appears to be his much more pleasant persona since retirement from tennis, I can only see him as the prat that he presented himself as. Of course the private life of 'the iceman' Borg was exactly that yet in this movie, if the portrayal of his selfishness, heartlessness, ungraciousness and surliness is anywhere near the truth then Borg is somebody for whom I could have no admiration, regardless of his sporting talent. Surely the man had few real friends. Who would put up with such an ingrate?

What a pity that people gifted with enormous talent, particularly in the sporting field, carry on their private lives as obnoxious, ungrateful boors.

I certainly was hoping that his coach would give Borg a good smack around the head and then abandon the ungrateful pupil.

So the film has obviously made an impression on me so accolades to the performers for making my vehement dislike of both Borg and McEnroe even more entrenched.

Even though I have only watched the first of EIGHT episodes I wish to comment on some of the reviewers here: as capitalised above, there are 8 episodes not 10 or 12. And for the critic who bemoaned the fact that Roosevelt and Princess Marta did not appear together in the first episode I suggest (because they did do so) you have not even watched this series. With inane comments from users of this IMDb site, it s a pity we have to tolerate their idiocy.

As for my view after watching just one episode, the portrayal of the German officer who has just captured the palace from which the royals fled is almost comical - the curled lip, the sneering look, the order to have palace attendants tortured - all meant to convey the stereotype of the cruel Nazi, is not only comical but childish. Ah yes...and then to reinforce this image, said officer must then go and shoot the royal family's dog!!!

I don't know whether I'll continue....

Laughed out loud when noticing series specifications saying that this series was in colour!! Presumably, the atmosphere and very appearance of Czechoslavakia at the time is faithfully portrayed here but were all the citizens as represented by characters here so dour, bleak and devoid of humour?

Am prepared to stick with the series although a major implausibility (woman gets thrown in the air from direct collision with car, massively injured but up and about in two days seeking answers to her dilemma) is very annoying. Compounding the implausibility here is the unbelieveable depiction of incident involving the kidnapping, threatened torture, interrogation and eventual return of the female cultural attache. This was followed by the completely heartless and heedless dismissal of said attache by her British superiors and her ejection from Czechoslavakia. These flaws in plot are jarring and hopefully will be kept to a minimum!

Perhaps I'll be able to update the rating to a higher score by series end but finding the going very tough at the moment.

Yes, the scenery was terrific, the music good in parts, cinematography very well done but plot wise, an absolute failure.

After suffering a severely broken leg' Mitchum, so the doctor says, will take months to recover. Ten minutes into the film our hero is 'up and running'.

Julie London the love interest (not very photogenic at all with strangely huge eyes and a big head!) does little more than look at Mitchum twice and then, because she is married to the army commander, she feels the need to confess that the 'affair' cannot continue!!! What affair? Was the movie severely cut because I missed entirely any semblance of a love affair. This critical aspect of the movie was pathetically portrayed.

Expecting great tension between the Mexican governor and his brother, I was gobsmacked that the governor gets killed 'off-screen'; expecting similar tension with the probable Apache/Mexican/US forces in battle, once again a big disappointment because no confrontation took place.

The gaps and non-existent action in the story line puts this movie into the minus B bracket and no attractive scenery, music or cinematography can redeem it. Even if Mitchum remembered to keep up the Mexican accent throughout ALL of his scenes, this remains a very mediocre western.

Always be wary of cinema or tv where the opening is devoted to a steamy, passionate sex scene, especially when it is interrupted by a phone call (from police headquarters) and the one being seduced asks the caller to hold until orgasm is achieved!!!! When Stella the legal officer is asked to take on a case she replies "I'll be there in 5". Laughably our heroine is able to regain her composure, tidy up, get dressed and convince her casual lover to drive her to be briefed on a murder case. Five minutes?!

Hoping that the plausibility factor would improve from this opening scene, things really didn't get better especially because of the voiceover from Stella who immediately painted characters as the 'baddies' leaving no room for character development. Sidekick Gunna, apparently obsessed with cats, has an unbelievable talent for hacking into government files within seconds.

Later when Stella's flat is broken into, two uniformed characters suddenly turn up to take her to the police station to make a statement. That these two were not policemen was so obvious that I'm afraid I have to question the intelligence level of our legal wizard Stella.

Where can this go to in episode 2? It's so far so bad that I feel inclined to stick with it for that one more episode and after al,l reviews here have been generally intriguingly full of praise.

The version I watched on TV was a pathetically unwatchable print. For a majority of the movie I could not make out the characters - the night scenes (of which there were many) were laughable with the orangutan-coloured faces of the characters highlighted against a very dark blue night.

Being so unwatchable, it was difficult to appreciate any nuances of expression on the faces of characters making this movie presentation much better suited to radio.

The plot was nothing out of the ordinary and since the vision was almost non-existent because of the poorest of quality prints, there's little else to say.

My tv channel broadcasting this series started advertising with trailers at least six weeks before the screening of Episode 1. On the look-out for entertaining and well-made tv series I told everyone to look out for "Shadowplay" because it seemed like the next 'big thing'. Because the storyline dealt with the very early post-war Berlin, a subject not greatly explored in general cinema and tv, I very much looked forward to watching this series. But unlike many critics here, after 4 episodes, I'm greatly disappointed. So much so that even small details are annoying. So the two brothers make a pledge in the late 1920 to 'watch each other's back' an expression first used in print in a 1974 novel by John Le Carre. On the same occasion a very young Max uses the 'f' expletive and the character is the only in the series to continually repeat same when we meet him as an American policeman in 1946. What's the point? Realistically was this word's usage all the vogue at that time? It doesn't seem in character with the adult Max and is utterly annoying. Enough has been said on the caricature of the Russians as thoroughly evil. It also beggars belief that a lone US cop would be sent to Germany to organise a policeforce but not be given any of the materials needed to get such a project off the ground. And it seems a bit of lazy scriptwriting that so far the main emphasis seems to be on Max finding his brother Moritz.

Things may improve but I may need to soon ring those to whom I so avidly recommended this series and apologise.

I'm neither a Stallone fan or lover of sci-fi but I thoroughly enjoyed this action/comedy. Everyone played their role just right, especially Stallone and Snipes. Production values were superb. Special effects, film locations and costumes were excellent. The comedy and satire are very well conveyed and the actual presentation of the future was most interesting and well done. A really enjoyable piece of entertainment.

Gosh, isn't it terrible when the credits start to roll and you're thinking to yourself what happened in the last 15 minutes of the film! Roberts' character definitely states that Beckwith is NOT Marzin, the suspected killer of her daughter (for obvious reasons which would be a major spoiler if revealed here) and yet the same actor Joe Cole plays both these characters!? The entire film was puzzling because of the many flashbacks where there was no discernible change in the characters' appearances or age! I really don't care to comment on other aspects of this film - acting was good from the leads - because my whole experience of viewing has been marred by the confusion caused by inane flashbacks.

What a strange movie this turned out to be. I found the conclusion most unsatisfying considering the histrionics from the majority of characters, particularly from the lead Baker and the Inspector (Portman) who swung inexplicably between moods of benevolence and vile-temperedness. Who was in whose grave and who wasn't buried at all? Was Cushing's character that of a mad scientist or a loyal and concerned friend of Baker's father? Characters take turns at pointing a gun at each other, none ever convincingly indicating they would actually use it! After all the intrigue and menacing dialogue (and lots of it) the explanation of the scientist (who wanted to be a nonentity) towards the end of the film just left me bewildered. Maybe he should have been the one pushed off the train?

Good to see the role of women as spies in WWII highlighted here. Am somewhat surprised by the very high ratings given here. It was a good movie but not one you'll be thinking about greatly once the credits have rolled. Possibly this is because the film lacks a truly persistent sense of danger. One would normally expect to encounter several 'on the edge of the seat' scenarios in a film about spies and Nazis and the notorious Klaus Barbie. But this was something I barely experienced throughout. The overall acting was always understated and little more than adequate. It was not bad nor was it terrific. Despite some good production values the lack of intensity is the most obvious deficiency made even more apparent when considering the subject matter. The 7 stars is a generous assessment.

Have viewed only first four episodes and came to this web site to see if reviewers thought it worth the while to continue....so that indicates that I'm not overly impressed with what I've seen so far. I think much of my lack of enthusiasm derives from being met with same stereotypes - bland, crusty, not particularly likeable central investigator who just happens to be very diligent in their work. But why can't we get some body a little more realistic, you know, somebody who shows a less pathetic empathy with their own family! Daughter Line is grossly unlikeable. The son should just get on the next plane and go back to Africa. Wisting's offsider Nils is a pain in the bum. And as with most detective series, the ancillary staff are never thanked for the excellent investigative work they perform. Yes, it's the usual stuff and although acting is generally good and character development and plot meet acceptable standards, this series to date is barely passable. Will not be disappointed if there's no Series 2.

No great depth here when it comes to characters but special effects/action scenes were very well put together. Would have preferred subtitles throughout - Russians using 'Americanisms' a little trite. On the subject of sub-titles - people who reject these outright, mark down movies which use them or even refuse to watch them in the first place really need to be confronted: you are intellectually lazy; emotionally challenged and show a regressive cowardice in appreciating films not in your mother tongue. Yanks are the best examples of the above described movie retards.

A reviewer incredibly asks how much more drama can be "squeezed" out of the event of nazi rule and the holocaust? The sick of mind are still amongst us. What sort of pathetic human being asks such a question.

Dictionary definition of 'twee' includes terms 'excessively quaint', 'pretty', 'sentimental', 'corny'. This film is all those things and more. Those reviewers here scoring it a 10/10 surely have not even watched the movie. How disappointing that a movie which centres on books, with renowned character actors and scenic settings ends up such a dud. Some of the dialogue was banal and delivered in such an unrealistic fashion. Surely the book was better than this? And the plot is not without plausibility - especially one woman's obsession with the establishment of an Arts Centre. So so twee. Read a good book rather than waste time with this dud.

Episode 1 started off well with the split screen usage being very effective in relating the horrific murder of a prostitute and near murder of a second. When a third woman met a similarly grisly death the plot moved quickly to the arrest of three young men who all confessed to the killings. This is when implausible situations took over, one after another, leaving me gobsmacked that a Lynda La Plante novel (if script and plot were faithfully followed) could be so mediocre. Damon, the manipulative mastermind of the three attacks, is credited with an overpowering control of the three accused and yet there is little to suggest why this is so. He treats not only senior police who have arrested him but also his own legal adviser with incredible contempt - to the point that Damon himself becomes an unbelievable character. As the second episode deals mainly with the court proceedings I thought credibility would gain the upper hand but the implausibility of situations became almost over-powering. What a pity because the actors tried hard to be convincing but the deficiencies in this production had too much of a stranglehold on this disappointing series.

This Sarah Phelps (am not British and know nothing of her work) seems to have aroused passionate criticism for her seemingly wholesale changes to the revered Agatha Christie's work. If the accusations are correct and further reading seems to make that a fact then it seems rather pointless in even describing The Pale Horse (the TV serialisation) as based on Christie's novel. At no stage did this production feel like a Christie who-dunnit. The so-called three witches felt completely contrived from start to finish. And the ending? Well, there will be no use of spoilers here because this Phelps' yarn has none. Take your pick from a few guesses! I fully agree with one review here which suggested the Christie estate should take legal proceedings against Sarah Phelps whose butchering of plot and character make this the worst Christie adaptation ever produced. So disgusting that a rating is inappropriate.