Reviews

...but as a biopic, as always - why do they always feel the need to reinvent the story? If the story was interesting enough to make a film about it to begin with, stick to the story!

If it was just a film, I would probably score it higher...or would I actually score it lower, just because the story is so unrealistic - and that's the thing. It's a true story, for the most part. Just very, very unbelievable. Life is often weirder/more interesting than fiction.

The good - the film did have that 70s and 80s feel and atmosphere. The story is so obscure, most people around the world would have no idea about the background, or the people in it - except for old time wrestling fans and people who listen to Jim Cornette, or similar wrestling podcasts (there are no similar wrestling podcasts to Jim Cornette..) or Vice documentaries. This makes it pretty "brave", making a big budget film about a family, that people outside of the US - that are into this sort of thing, wouldn't normally know, or care about one bit.

It was done well, the acting was good for the most part. It did show the gritty life of pro wrestling, the mentality, the messed up mind of Fritz and it almost made you believe in the Von Erich Family curse. Maybe Kevin is the only one that isn't cursed? Or maybe his curse is that he's the only one that has to live, without all his brothers? Maybe the curse is real after all.

The in ring action was well done, Chavo Guerrero Jr looked great, I had no idea he was supposed to be in it, he looked decades younger than he is.

The scene, where the brothers meet in the afterlife was actually pretty heart warming.

The bad - they didn't stick to the "script" = life. They totally left out the youngest son. Fritz didn't like him (if he was naming and ranking his favourite sons, as he would, Chris would probably come up at number onehundredandtwentythousand..after going through the phonebook).. because Chris was way too small and didn't make a good wrestler...so the film-makers just left him out completely as well.

Poor Chris took his misfortune very hard and took his life as well, he probably is indeed cursed, even after his death, since there was no space in this big budget (lisp) "major motion picture" for his little self at all. Maybe they didn't want to spam the film with so much ache and so many suicides, but hey - it happened! Fritz also offed himself and I don't believe it was mentioned either.

Zac was buff af in this film, he did very well, but he also looked way too old and both him and the Kerry guy looked way too small/short. I fault the camera work for this, it is not the first time a shorter actor played a part of a tall person, but this is probably the first film I've ever seen, where it was blatantly obvious.

Let's say you couldn't tell in the ring, you could, but let's say you just didn't know, because you don't know how tall the other guys are supposed to be. But among normal people, general public, a wedding?

I was schocked when I found out Joaquin Phoenix was 5'8" after watching him play Johnny Cash in I walk the line. I assumed he must be 6'2", he just looked tall in the film to me - that's how you do it. That's what film making (and wrestling) is supposed to be about - suspend your disbelief. The Iron Claw failed miserably in this particular aspect.

Ric Flair's loud, incoherent, slobbering and lisping rambling is hard to emulate - I get it, but the guy totally failed though. He looked good, looked better physically than Ric ever did, but they should have had the vocal track dubbed by some of the very few people, who can actually commit to it and do it properly. Ric Flair himself would probably ask for a billion $ to do the voice himself (and of course he's like 700 years old at this point), but maybe Jay Lethal could have done it? Because this actor was so bland compared to Ric, if Ric was anything like this as a performer, he would only be able to afford one second hand alligator shoe..over his lifetime. Nobody would watch that. Nobody would ever buy into his character. If you can't use the actual footage of the promo, or do a voice-over by someone like Jay Lethal...maybe just leave it out altogether?

Lance von Erich was a big fiasco for Von Erichs, that was also omitted - he was not mentioned at all, "he" was only shown in the ring for a few brief seconds. Apparently Lance scenes (played by MJF) didn't make the cut. Bit of a shame.

*******

For the people unfamiliar with the story, this film could provide an interesting insight into the lives of one wrestling family, and let them peek behind the curtain a bit, or just provide some entertainment for a couple of hours.

For people who follow the behind the scenes of pro wrestling - The Iron Claw was well made, wasn't embarrassing like many other depictions of pro wrestling in film or on tv (like Jesse Ventura story, oh poor Jesse..), the film even did justice to some aspects of the business, but it was also a bit of a let down, having so many crucial historical inaccuracies in it. Overall, the film is better than I expected.

What a roller-coaster. I've just finished the entire series, it took me probably a year and if there's another season, or another 10 seasons, I would watch it, but.... I am writing this upset, because of the totally unnecessary and foolish ending.

I get that you have to reinvent yourself, introduce new characters, ideas, subplots, issues, how else are you going to bring more stories..

However, as the series went on, it was very obvious, they didn't know what to do anymore, the plots made a very little sense, everything was way to repetitive. For example:

• Saaammy (and sometimes Dean) would end up tied to a chair towards the end of so many episodes, I've lost count. You'd think, that when this starts happening to a person on a regular basis, they'd get multiple blades and cuff keys hidden within reach in their jacket sleeve, watch strap, have a little pouch sewn in on the inner side of jeans behind their back, keep a blade in there, pull out a little (silver) blade or a cuff key and you're out of there, especially since the monsters always seem to leave them in the room alone, or are constantly distracted. Again,it's not about running through everyone on an easy mode, it's about learning from experience. The hunters would have definitely figured it out.

• the boys would get their behind handed to them in very underwhelming scenarios, after being hunters for maybe 3 decades, it made no sense - how did they get worse over time? Just jobbing to any schmuck ghost, or whatever, flying across the room and getting beat up. Yes, they needed a challenge, can't just run through everyone in an easy mode - but maybe the monsters should have been more impressive, rather than some run of the mill vampires etc. Again, also having a silver blade hidden in a forearm holster, ideally retractable (boxcutter style, but a proper silver blade) blade, would save them from being beaten on/choked/ground and pounded on a regular basis. They lose their weapons all the time and get beat up all the time, they'd figure it out in all those years.

• the Chuck/angels deal was just nauseating. A little too much, draaaaggeed ooon for way to long. The series was much more enjoyable, when they were hunting monsters. I liked Cass, but too many unimpressive angels, very obvious random extras (good for them, they got Supernatural on their resume...but whan an unimpressive bunch), nodding their heads, fighting with angel blades, while looking very mediocre. If you have to engage in a hand to hand combat, wouldn't you have some soldier/fighter lookings mofos instead of an office personnel in suits and Lt. Columbo coat? This is fearce Angel Seraphina, or whatever, but she's in a vessel of a 130lbs lady from HR, her name is Judy, she's gonna fight you with angel blade...same goes for the Demons. I am sorry, I am not afraid of some pencil neck geek Jimmy from sales department. Why do most of the later demons/angels look like office clerks? Why does Heaven look like office nightmare?

• horrible British characters, for the most part. Crowley was fantastic, until they stupidly killed him off, Rowenna detto, the rest of them super-un-likable. By that I don't mean evil characters I don't like, because they're so evil...I mean - "I don't want to see this character any more". Like the horrible woman in the earlier series, the thief lady with British accent? Couldn't stand her.

• many of the season's finales were completely underwhelming. You build something up for 20 plus episodes, oh my, how are they going to solve this... and then...pow, right in the kisser and it's all over. The apocalypse fight etc.

• the boys kept using fake credit cards, had zero means of income, even after finding the bunker. Bunker has everything, but no trust fund, gold, something..to explain how they get food and gas money. Still using just fake credit cards? Bobby was a hunter, bud he had a scrap yard, the other woman in early seasons was a hunter, but had a bar

• Sammy, such an important character, got very interesting when he started to gain his powers, visions etc. He was chosen by the Yellow eyes guy, a special kid...then suddenly- nothing. No visions, nothing. "Hey Sammy, remember how you used to have your visions and stuff? How you could see the future?" - "..No..". What a waste. The series is called Supernatural! They deal with demons, Lucifer, angels, God, various gods, why not allow him also to keep that bit of mysterious, supernatural aspect? Nah mate, here's a knife and a gun instead. Be like your brother, but worse. They really could have kept Sammy more special, instead they made him into a whiny vegan hippie.

• the spells obviously work. They can send angels away, after cutting themselves and writing a special sign in their blood...cool touch. Why not learn a couple more spells and tricks?

• John Winchester never coming back, although everybody else did...- until he comes back, looks almost 20 years older..because the actor is..he's thin as a rail, but they didn't even try to conceal it. No hair dye, no jacket to make him look buff and younger. And he's suddenly a father of the year, who's proud of his boys. He was supposed to be the younger, despotic version of himself, who just appeared in the future, why does he look frail and why is he suddenly so different? Would it kill them/and the actor - to appear as a ghost a couple of times for five minutes earlier on, in the previous seasons? It would have been so much better for the series. Did the actor hate the series that much? Would he cost them so much, they couldn't afford a filming day?

• grandpa Campbell / X-Files Skinner guy, no thanks. What an annoying character.

• the overall ending was absolutely insanely brutally unnecessary. If it wasn't for this horrible last episode - if the last episode was the previous one, the series would have been so much better as a whole. Jack is the new God, he's a good guy..why would he even bring the monsters back? Why wouldn't he just bring back the animals and the mankind?

Now to the good things:

• pretty much everything else. It had some incredibly funny episodes, like X-Files used to do every now and then. Some characters were just great, loveable, like meeting a good friend for a beer.

• Dean, what a character, funny, witty, probably 95%+ of viewers most favourite character.

• Crowley, arguably the best character that came along once the series went downhill with the whole angels storyline. He saved so many of the seasons with his presence. Should have kept him on for sure. The series was never the same without him.

• Bobby, another good character, again, killed him prematurely, brought him back as a ghost, from another dimension etc. That's the thing, no death is terminal in this Supernatural universe..

• Sammy, the whiny, annoying brother, but we like him anyway. (I wish they kept him with his supernatural visions. They still let him dabble in magic, but should have done more with his character. Being Rowena's apprentice for a while would have been interesting)

• the bunker of Men of Letters, what a great idea, it was satisfying to finally see the boys have a proper and very interesting home.

I might reconsider the rating, because I did enjoy the series - but honestly, enjoyed it mostly DESPITE many...many lacklustre episodes and whole seasons. It had a few fantastic characters that made it worth watching, some very well done plots, unfortunately, these brilliant episodes were few and far between as the series progressed.

Is wrong.

Some of you here claim Hancock "has no proof" - yet Gobekli Tepe is scientifically proven - not by Hancock - to be as old, as he claims it to be. Google the site and see what age you can find.

Once again - Gobekli and Karahan Tepe are indeed around 11-12 thousand years old (- which is universally agreed at this point), then everything they ever taught us about our ancient history is simply wrong.

Imagine, we have suddenly discovered some new information - just like some started to claim a few hundred years ago, that Earth isn't flat or that the sun doesn't orbit around Earth - people who claimed this, were burned alive, because scientists of that time "knew better". Now we all (well most of us) agree with this as a fact. In a few decades, all the kids will know about Gobekli Tepe and hopefully many other places yet to be discovered and it will be accepted.

You can't have it both ways - there was this joke about an old man at the zoo, looking at a giraffe all day long. Giraffe was walking around, chewing on the leaves, resting. The man was just shaking his head. They were closing up for the day and asked the man to leave. As he was leaving, he said "that animal you have there cannot possibly exist, it just makes no sense..", he walked away still shaking his head.

I was on Malta in 1997, visited most of the megalithic sites - they told us, "these are the oldest man made structures in the world" - well, and they were wrong. (Unless they are not 5-6 thousand years old - as they thought, but are also 11 thousand + years old - in which case, the scientists were very wrong still - wrong at establishing the real construction date). In 1997, it was universally believed, that it was a fact. Gobekli Tepe was only discovered/serious digs started in 94/95, it took a few years to determine the actual age.

Graham Hancock dares to ask questions.

He dares to say (and I am paraphrasing) "well, if Gobekli Tepe is admittedly this old - you have to admit, you were wrong about our history. Our ancestors from that era obviously weren't nearly as primitive, as you claim. What else did you get wrong? What else do you claim, although you have no proof for whatsoever? Let's investigate, let's study, let's talk about it"

The self assured, but very obviously mistaken historians and archaeologists: "no, you're a pseudo-scientist"

Oh, OK then...

There's no way, they were building such structures, while being just hunters and gatherers - although that's what these series also claim.

Why and how would you build all that, while having no certainty, that you can have enough food in the surrounding area? Unless you can grow your own food and raise your own animals, you'd never do that - unless it was some "garden of eden", with nothing but endless supply of food growing and running around.

But anyway, let's imagine for a while, that a huge cataclysm destroys most of the world in the next few days. You survive, a few thousand people around the world survive, but no technology survives. No internet. Most roads are gone, no electricity, no running water, no medical care..

...then some brainiac 20 thousand years from now asks - "so, if those people did exist and were not primitive, were are their houses? Where's their rubbish" - well, my friend, it's overgrown, under the sea, disintegrated - did you really expect your particular timber, or brick house will survive 10- 20 thousand years? After a cataclysm? Think about it. Look at a 100 year old abandoned shed. Now imagine it in 5 thousand years, 10 thousand years. What is it going to look like? All the huge pyramids in Mexico were overgrown - it only took a few hundreds of years of neglect, it all became a jungle.

You know what could possibly survive all that? - such as a huge cataclysm and possibly ten thousand + years of climate change, vegetation grow, nature taking over in general? - A huge, megalithic structure, ideally burried under ground..like Gobekli Tepe and others.

Is Graham Hancock right about everything? No, he doesn't have to be.

And remember one more thing, while you're reading this and clicking thumbs down on my comment, on this wonderful website.. somewhere in a remote jungle, there's a small slender guy, chasing some squirrel sized animal with a spear or a blowgun, which is the most advanced piece of technology, that he ever held in his possession. You and this little savage guy can live at the same time, living totally different lives, a few thousand km from each other. His people will live like that for another bunch of thousands of years, unless we interfere with their lifestyle.

In 2024, you still have modern people and primitive savages living "side by side"..if you have these savages living in stone age conditions today in Amazon jungle, how can anyone in their right mind claim, that it wasn't like that also 12 thousand or more years ago?

Those Amazon rainforest tribes could never build their own Gobekli Tepe today and they would never ever try, it would never occur to them - "hey, let's build this huge, megalithic structure..". Maybe in a few thousand or tens of thousands of years they eventually would. Those people are the hunters and gatherers.

Builders of Gobekli Tepe were obviously far ahead of that. So you want a proof - other, than it's scientifically proven, that these sites are that old? Here's your proof - today's hunter and gatherers have built nothing but some primitive shacks. And it's 2024.

"Nah mate, 2003 John can look 15 years older, that makes perfect sense.."

"Oh K...So how will he behave, when he suddenly appears?"

"Well, he'll hug everyone and he'll be nice to his sons"

"But he was a horrible father! He never took care of the boys, he was always away and he "raised" the boys in cheap motels"

"Yeah, so now he's totally different..all of a sudden. He's a loving father, who is proud of his boys".

"So let me get this straight - he looks nothing like he did in 2003, because they didn't even try to conceal the fact, that he got much older, no dye, no jacket to make him look more buff..he's suddenly old and frail looking...and he's also lost all of his character's traits?"

"..what's your point".

"My point is - this is insane, it's nice to see them together, but how about some effort? Everyone comes back in Supernatural, they all die, but some back, are revived, are ghosts, are alive in another dimension, are in heaven...but not John..only when he finally comes back, after x amount of years, they don't put any real, meaningful effort into it. Does the actor really hate this series so much?".

On one hand, you have sir Anthony Hopkins, an absolute legend, some other good actors, on the other hand, you have the weakest, fakest looking cgi "lion". They would have made it more convincing, if they used a dog or some dude dressed up in a lion pyjama onsie. How about you just don't use a "lion" then? Just don't do it.

The storyline is so very predictable - it's exactly what you expect a 2020s show to be - most Romans (portrayed by British actors, as always) are stupid, useless and decadent inbreds, although they "somehow" basically run the whole Europe and Mediterranean, they run everything, that actually matters during that time period - while immigrants and slaves are all super smart, confident, they play Romans like a fiddle.

They trick them, take advantage of them, outsmart them, whichever way they want, while Romans seem convinced, that they are the ones in charge.

There's so many weak and nonsensical subplots 1) "gold bars were allegedly taken from the vault, so we're gonna count everything - you better watch out brother" - but nobody actually guards the place and the guys dressed as Roman soldiers can just waltz in and casually put the bars back in, just in time for the count. Absolutely insane. Ridiculous. What would be the point of blaming the brother for stealing them, if pretty much anyone can just walk in and out unnoticed and take gold away, or bring it in? "Yeah, watch out brother, we keep a very good track of our finances, but our Roman guards seem to be on their phones all the time)

2) slaves walking around town like it's nothing - what's the point of having slaves, if they can just leave the property on their own and walk around? Why would they ever go back? They don't seem to have any chains, any mark, tattoo, branding or anything, to show that they're slaves and who they belong to.

The supersmart mother buys her daughter back "I give you tree fiddy" - "yeah, no worries, she's all yours now" - what's the difference? Where's the contract? If anyone can sell and buy slaves, that are apparently just walking around freely, how would anyone keep track of them? Why would you pay big money for someone, who can just walk away at any time? "Now you're free" - "Where's the proof?" - "don't worry mate, if anybody snatches you again, just walk out, no worries".

"Didn't I have like a bunch of slaves, working around my estate? You know I paid thousands of clams for them at that slave market last week.."

• "yeah, I think they just left. They didn't like it here, or maybe they just went for a walk, or shopping, I don't know, whatever".

• "oh, OK, fair enough".

• mind-numbingly stupid.

3) way too many characters, many of them totally unremarkable and easily forgettable, that don't seem to do anything for the plot development. The "original shareholder of the blue faction lady" that lost her share due to husband's gambling - if they didn't tell me every time, that this is the lady who lost the share, I would never remember who is she supposed to be.

There's many others like that - way too many Spanish brothers and African daughters that don't do anything for a bunch of episodes, just to have a couple of interactions at some point, totally pointless waste of time (*nothing* "I want to sleep with you" - "yeah, you reckon? No worries" *nothing*)

If you think the character is important, use the character. If you have nothing for the character, the show doesn't have to have 100 of them doing a sporadic one-two liners every second episode.

Good for the actors, to get a credit, but pointless for the show.

4) what kind of organized crime individuals let some children carry all the gold to some apartment? You're a head of the operation and have no thugs around you at all times? It's your city, you're a criminal, you know everybody - you deal with the emperor's son/brother, you're his client, yet your enemy always finds you alone and you give up all the gold, because he beat you up and wrote you a letter?.. and then a slender African lady nearly whoops his behind.

5) killing the main antagonists in the same episode, or just so close to each other. The giant gladiator guy (Martyn Ford) - Kwame's opponent and the Swedish long haired muscle guy - Tenax's enemy.

6) the name of the whole series implies, that it is about gladiators. Gladiators are admittedly in it, to some extent, but so are gamblers, drunks, criminals, senators etc..and most of all - the horse racing factions - that is by far the main focus of these series. I don't mind the series not being solely about gladiators, or that they are barely in it in some (most) of the episodes, but it's like a supposed cooking show, that doesn't show you any real cooking for most of it.

Now back to the special effects.

CGI makes a lot of things possible these days, and I do admit, the 50s and 60s sword and sandal movies didn't look exactly realistic either. They would have used a real lion though (although it would have been drugged out of it's mind, which is probably what they've tried to avoid). The crocodiles look also totally ridiculous. Are they alligators on steroids?

With that being said, as a big Star Wars fan in my youth (the original trilogy special edition) those space creatures in those films from over 40 years ago, seem to look way more realistic, than today's cgi in this series. How is it even possible? The budget? OK, but this is 2024, we all carry a computer in our pocket, is this really the best they can do? They must see, that it looks ridiculous! Not everything, but some of it is just painful to watch.

But even the greatest special effects and real lions, and some very good acting, couldn't save this show from being quite mediocre - because of the whole premise, the whole storyline is just meh and completely unbelievable.

On one hand, you have sir Anthony Hopkins, an absolute legend, some other good actors, on the other hand, you have the weakest, fakest looking cgi "lion". They would have made it more convincing, if they used a dog or some dude dressed up in a lion pyjama onsie. How about you just don't use a "lion" then? Just don't do it.

The storyline is so predictable - most Romans (portrayed by British actors, as always) are stupid, useless and decadent inbreds, although they "somehow" basically run the whole Europe and Mediterranean - while immigrants and slaves are all super smart, confident, they play Romans like a fiddle. They trick them, take advantage of them, outsmart them, whichever way they want, while Romans seem convinced, that they are the ones in charge.

CGI makes a lot of things possible these days, and I do admit, the 50s and 60s sword and sandal movies didn't look exactly realistic either. They would have used a real lion though (although it would have been drugged out of it's mind, which is probably what they've tried to avoid).

With that being said, as a big Star Wars fan in my youth (the original trilogy special edition) those space creatures in those films from over 40 years ago, seem to look way more realistic, than today's cgi in this series. How is it even possible? The budget? OK, but this is 2024, we all carry a computer in our pocket, is this really the best they can do?

But even the greatest special effects and real lions, and some very good acting, couldn't save this show from being quite mediocre - because of the whole premise, the whole storyline.

...yet so very effective.

The demon actor takes the cake, so does the writing - for the most part.

I will get the bad out of the way first, as there's very little of it.

1) The detective with a gun viewing the execution - would he be really allowed to have a gun on him? What for? So that was convenient, also very unnecessary. The breakdown could have been done differently.

2) The bum/demon in the end - totally unnecessary. Demon should have just taken the psychiatrist because 3) the psychiatrist already invited the demon in - which is my third point - why did the demon need another agreement for the book, the psychiatrist already let him in, so the demon doesn't need any other permission. With so much thought put into the writing and the character, this to me seems like a serious flaw.

These points almost make me want to rate the film a 9, but the demon actor was so good and the back and forth conversation was just so well written, that I am going to let it slide. Maybe I would rate it a 9.5, but tha can't be done.

It wasn't the original Exorcist - the best horror movie ever made and one of the best movies overall, it wasn't Rosemary's baby, or Omen, it was a totally different kind of a horror.

No special effects, just a very strong character, playing mind games, controlling everyone around him, destroying his poor vessel Edward, whom he makes suffer the most - because he's evil and it gives him pleasure.

Some say, that this film can't be a 10, because it's not Citizen Kane - I agree, it's not, as I didn't fall asleep 20 minutes into watching this film.

This film was actually captivating, so incredibly "simple" - taking place mostly in one room, most of it is just a conversation, most of which a monologue and most of the acting done by the demon actor.

There were plenty other movies about demon possession, mental illness, multiple personality disorders - this one was the most well played evil/demon character I've ever seen, in about 30 years of watching horror movies on a weekly basis.

This has to be the best new/current film, that I've seen in last 20 years. Don't get me wrong, I've seen many fantastic films - but all of them are older ones, new films don't tend to impress me at all, so this was an unexpected surprise. Most of the horror movies on Prime are so weak, that a 6 rating here, is a 3 rating from me.

Let me start with the things, I actually appreciated. Filming in an abandoned resort actually sounds like a great idea - especially, if you had an actual idea on what the story should be. But I will give them a point for the setting.

The scenery is nice. Some of the actors I can imagine seeing in other projects, it's not all bad, the big buff guy looks quite memorable.

I liked the little detail, when walking on the path to the resort (ideally, the path would have been overgrown, not looking like a botanical garden path) - when the two characters are walking in front of the camera and talking and the other two characters are behind them, having a conversation of their own. You can kind of hear them from the back, they're having a good time - it was a nice touch. It was definitely the realest part of the film.

Now to the bad parts.

The interior scenes especially, were filmed like a soap opera and overall, like a low effort TV movie at best. A helicopter scene has helped, drone footage also helps, but they can do only so much.

The whole premise is unfortunately a non-story. It's so low effort, it's not even worth getting into*. Wanting to film a haunting in an abandoned resort for a youtube channel/project would have been OK, since there's plenty videos like that and they get views - but this is not even it, she barely tried to take some pictures - what was even the point in going there?

* the main issue, is the premise of the haunting itself - that's just non existent.

As for the "horror" aspect, it wasn't a horror for most of the film and it was even watchable at times, before it decided to turn into a "horror" for the last 15 or so minutes.

• a zombie ghost girl in nightgown, with hair covering her face - check
• a friend running away and you find him standing, point a flashlight at him from behind, while he's facing the wall - check
• the reality is not the reality - check

With the scenery, the setting, even the cast, they could have done much better. There doesn't seem to be any cheaper film genre, than a "horror" film, yet the story itself is almost always neglected- they always seem to rush, instead of giving the story some meaning and developing it properly.

Another film you've seen at least a dozen times, and that's only if you don't even watch "horror" movies.

Good for the actors, the crew and all the local fast food establishments, that the crew frequented during the filming - they all made some money - other than giving some people money and a credit for their resume, it was absolutely pointless.

There were about three relatively funny remarks in the whole film, unfortunately, I can't recall these remarks two days after watching this film, so they weren't all that memorable, but they were there somewhere.

Small town..yadda yadda yadda, a big local event is going on/anniversary coming up...yadda yadda yadda..killer in a mask that anybody could wear, yadda yadda yadda, cold weapons being used to murder pretty much random people - because the reason of the revenge murders was totally, unapologetically shoehorned in, as always:

"...uumm..yeah..so you were like laughing and umm..like pointing and..umm..like that is how you caused that people got killed in that Black Friday sales shopping stampede..yeah and most importantly, my pregnant lover that got killed there, she's got to be at least - at least! 55 years old, but anyway.."

I only give it 3 stars instead of 1 or 2, because it looks like it wasn't just recorded on an iPhone, so the production value was a bit higher, than some other "horror films", I've seen in the last couple of months.

A bunch of young people go into a forest/river area, to film an adventure video with a vegan sausage somehow shoehorned into it. Everybody communicates as if it was their first time among other people. There's some mysterious flower blooming in the forest, that seemingly makes these people even weirder, a nut of a "sheriff" who tells you, that you can't urinate in "his" forest..so apparently the answer to a lifelong question "does the bear $h1t in the woods" - is a "No!", at least in this particular location. Who knew. There's another bunch of strange individuals, conducting some sort of iffy business and some other, cabbage fermenting gentleman and his wife. Two people wear a nose clip of some sort, but nobody else...there's not one normal person in the whole film. The film is a salad of random ideas - inserted - again, at random - minor characters, their stories and dialogues, shots, that add absolutely nothing.

There seems to be this trend, of making movies, especially "horror" movies, without any real conclusion, or even if it has some sort of ending, they don't show you, how it got there.

It's not as cute, as they think it is. Quite the opposite.

Imagine watching Star Wars where there would be no spaceships, no lightsabers etc shown. They would tell you - "yeah, so we travel between galaxies and stuff and we fight, but we won't show you how. Just imagine it, or whatever - and do our work for us - in your mind, it's cheaper that way and we don't have any ideas anyway."

Yeah, it wouldn't work very well, would it?

Almost everything would be half passable, meh acting, but it's low budget, so you expect that, even the non-ending would hurt way less, if it wasn't for the unbearable dialogues!

The fact, that non English speakers (maybe the actual actors themselves) dubbed the dialogues into "English", is totally fine, it kind of adds to the character. However, should you really write dialogues in a foreign language just using Google translate? Without having ANY native speaker to at least read through the script, before doing the voice-over.. Because that's exactly how the dialogues sounded. Maybe in Latvian, or whatever the original language was, it all sounded right, but in English it just didn't.

Don't get me wrong - all the words used in the film do exist, I've heard them all before, but never in this order. You know what they're trying to say, probably most of the time, but it's clear, that they've picked the wrong words and made up their own expressions.

I will put it this way - if you watched this movie on mute and without any subtitles, just for the visual, you'd probably get way more out of it. You'd try to imagine, why people act the way they do, you'd try to figure out what they're talking about - and you'd do a much better job, than the filmmakers did.

It looks like at this point, they're just begging us to stop watching this show. The main characters are either dead, or not main anymore, Julianna is literally barely there, John Smith is, but his main duty is dealing with his teenage daughter (who apparently is played by the same actress as always, but I've never noticed what she looked like, because it just doesn't matter). There's a bunch of new characters, now there's apparently no Resistance in the Pacific West, now it's just black communists, who are suddenly on their own. Wyatt is being pushed, but at least he's somewhat established from before..Childen doesn't recognise him, they honestly have never met in Denver? And who cares about Kido's son, if we didn't need him for the first 3 seasons, why do we need him now, same goes for all the Japanese higher ups. Tagomi being killed off screen is pathetic, he obviously didn't want to be in this anymore, which is a shame (but understandable..), he was such a likable character. There have been some very questionable subplots and developments before, weird characters, even the last season wasn't all that great, but seeing these two episodes, I really don't think I am going to finish this series.

...and that's where my praise unfortunately ends.

I thought my expectations could not have been any lower, but I was wrong. I honestly went to see this movie saying to myself, "it's probably going to be bad and cringey, as the kids say..but what the hell, it's a Poirot".

It's called A haunting in Venice, obviously, it's going to take place in Venice, Italy, they'll find a reason why Poirot would be there - he travels a lot, it will make sense. It didn't.

He apparently wanted some peace and quiet, so he retired..to Venice.

Not English countryside, not any other countryside, Venice. (He reaaally doesn't want to be bothered - in this crowded city...he literally hired a bodyguard, to keep people away from him - in this crowded city..This bodyguard even beats up random people, that try to approach Poirot for help and only the pastry baker is allowed near him, twice a day.) Could have been worse, I guess, they could have made him retire in the walled city of Kowloon.

This is one of the many totally nonsensical elements in this film.

1947, Italy - how many Italian characters are actually in the film? The bodyguard/ex policeman, the pastry baker, the guy who wants to see Poirot, because his family is dead..and? The extras? The children that visit the palazzo on Halloween are Black and Asian...in 1947 Venice. In 2023? Absolutely, 100%, wouldn't question it a bit. In 1947? Yeah, nah.

The Hungarian/Gypsy "siblings" are so obviously not even remotely related, it's not even funny, their names are "Desdemona" and "Nicholas" - "Holland"? - sure, typical Hungarian and Romani names.

And then there's "Mrs Reynolds". Are you kidding me?? A lovely Asian lady, with a lovely English accent..and with a lovely non-Asian name..in 1947. Again, if it was set in the last 30 years, sure.

Now imagine, that this character was actually portrayed like a mysterious Asian/Oriental lady medium, with a proper Chinese name, who would speak in broken English - how much more depth and mystery that could add. Instead we got something like "'ello, my name is (insert the most generic name you can think of, like : Jennifer Smith..or how about "Mrs Reynolds"), hello, I'm Julie, or whatever Reynolds, and I be your medium tonight".

So very and unnecessarily inauthentic.

It's almost surprising, that when the phone rang, it wasn't an iPhone.

The rest of the cast is also quite meh. Jamie Dornan and the mother bothered me the least. The "Poirot" actor/director obviously hates the character, makes him look like a total buffoon. Yes, Poirot is quirky, but come on.

Yeah, like Poirot, with his perfectly manicured moustache, would let this strange woman, place a mask over his face, cape over his head..yeah, right..and to walk over to the giant bowl, to submerge his entire face...to fish out an apple with his teeth! Poirot doing something like this? It's like Superman burning down a shack full of cute little bunnies and puppies.

Moronic writing. I don't remember Ms Oliver being American and a despicable person, she is weird and of course, like I said earlier, Poirot is weird too in the books and other adaptations, but there's a limit to their weirdness.

All the characters are actually excessively weird.

The only positive points I can actually think of, are the scenery, which is very nice, and overall, the cinematography is great. These two thing make it look like it should be a really good film, unfortunately, the film is quite abysmal.

Acting overall is just over the top. Everybody. And it's really annoying. The "Mrs Reynolds" lady spinning around and yelling is eye roll inducing, some of her other scenes are not bad. Except for the "listening".."listening"..."listening"..and again some more "listening". Just enough already... Angry "Poirot" is trying to be an angry David Suchet Poirot...but at least he's copying the second best Poirot (BBC's John Moffatt is always no. 1), Peter Ustinov is 3rd and this current one probably somewhere around 57. I wouldn't hate him as much, if he wasn't also the director. He's not playing the character like someone else wants him to play it. He plays it like he wants to. This is how he sees it. That's just sad.

I can see how people, who have never actually read the books, listened to BBC radio plays, or watched some much better versions of Poirot stories would like the film much better than I did, but I've spent decades loving this character, so for me this movie was very boring, shameful and embarrassing.

In a very good way. It all depends what you expect, I guess. I expected the kind of a film I've seen a million times, but it was quite different from almost anything.

The dramatic music and loud noises in the beginning - I could have been without, especially, since there wasn't much happening yet. They probably wanted to let us know, something is about to happen soon enough.

The story is about puritan family in an exile (voluntary), away from other people, due to religious differences. They are however not holier than th... anybody else. As pretty much anybody, who thinks and tries to portray themselves, like they're better than others. They have their fair share of troubles - with honesty, faith, kindness, they deceive each other, blame each other, hurt each other.

The land is hostile, the crops are bad, nothing is actually going very well at all. And then, as if that wasn't bad enough...there's this vvitch.

Eventually, even the father realises, he should have been a bit more humble and stayed in the settlement. A bit late for that though.

The scenery is great, haunting, acting is very good - kudos to those little children, other than having slightly different accents than the older family members - but that's absolutely nitpicking, they did fantastic, especially for this kind of movie.

If you're expecting to see a slasher horror, monsters running around all the time, slime and liters of blood gushing everywhere, this is not the film. You will have a bit of that sort of stuff, but really, only a bit. It's more of a psychological film. It's scary enough, but mostly in a different way.

If you foolishly expect a 45 minute documentary, about Nazis looking for the actual Holy Grail, you're foolish indeed. Just like myself.

They do talk about a German individual (Otto Rahn) working for Himmler, looking for the actual Grail in France - spoiler alert, he doesn't find it (thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week). They talk about the Cathars, that allegedly had the Grail in their possession. This is 5-10 minutes of the whole documentary.

After this, they talk about other German individuals believing in Atlantis (Herman Wirth) and looking for origins of Aryan race, also working for Himmler.

The Nazis conduct several expeditions around the world, Scandinavia, Iceland, Tibet (Ernst Schafer) looking for symbols, artefacts, measuring people's faces, etc., in quest for origins of Aryan race.

They want to replace Christianity with Nazi religion, based on old mythology, which is interesting, since they're looking for the Holy Grail, closely associated with Jesus, yet they apparently refuse Christianity, because they say it's essentially Jewish. OK.

Then they talk about Holocaust and show clips from the Holocaust.

They show the same photographs and short clips from the Nazi Germany over and over again throughout this documentary. You will probably see the exact same photos and clips like 4-5 times. They also tell you what they're going to talk about, talk about it and then repeat the same thing, to fill out the time.

Out of all the documentaries that I've seen, this is one of them. But seriously, it's more about Nazis in general, their ideology/mythology, rather than about the Holy Grail. Unless the Holy Grail is the Aryan race, in which case, they still don't offer you any conclusion.