Reviews

This is an astounding documentary. It shows the horror of a terrorist attack while it's actually happening. I put it in not knowing whether I'd make it to the end. I'm glad I did. It is an important film.

I was amazed and sickened by the Hamas propaganda films. They show a bunch of swaggering, cowardly and inhumanly cruel thugs attacking defenseless people. They laugh as men and women are pleading for their lives. They relentlessly chase people down both on foot and in vehicles to ensure their slaughter. They are committing atrocities and laughing about it. This is what they want to share with the world? Why would they think it would bring anything other than total condemnation? Their actions are indefensible.

The stories of survival and heroism on the part of the festival goers are inspiring. The stories of the loss of loved ones are heartbreaking. Israel needs and deserves our full support.

I wholeheartedly recommend this incredible and important documentary.

Okay, first off I have to say I'm a bit pissed off at the maker of this documentary. He wasn't qualified to make a judgement on this subject and he should've just documented it and let the viewer decide. He essentially sabotaged his own documentary.

The second thing anyone reading this should know, I started creating art at a very young age, too. My mother showed my sister and I how to do one point perspective and how to draw a person's face and body proportionally when I was four years old. By the time I got to kindergarten I could draw cityscapes and cars. I could also capture people's likenesses. The kids in school looked at me as if I had discovered fire. The number one question/accusation I got was 'Did you trace it?'. No I didn't and my mother never helped me with anything I painted or drew, either.

I've been a lifelong appreciator of art, am very well grounded in art history and have made a study of all major artists of the abstract expressionist movement. I did some gallery shows when I was in college and sold some of my works. I've been in thousands of critiques during my college and professional career. I know what it takes to create an artwork and to have that work held up to public scrutiny. I graduated with a BS in Commercial Art and had a year in architecture school before going on a long a successful career in architecture. My point is this is subject I know a great deal about.

There is no doubt in my that Marla Olmstead is the sole creator of her artworks. The thing that drove me crazy when watching this was that people thought that she couldn't have created these paintings because she couldn't verbalize what she was doing and that some artworks ones, that I would say were created under some duress, weren't as good as others. I've got news for them, painters who have paintings in museums have a lot of duds, too. They only show their very best. If you go to any artist's studio the walls are usually stacked with works they don't think are up to snuff.

Now, on to Marla and what I could glean of her method. I could see very clearly that she was very exploratory. She had a good knowledge of color and loved combining colors to make new colors. She had a number of ways she liked to apply paint to the canvas and she was making aesthetic decisions based on how the painting was evolving.

The women who says 'She's just pushing paint around like a normal child' is both right and wrong. While her technique is that of child what she produces is at a much higher level. She was a child with a highly developed color sense and sense of design and her work shows that.

This was also brand new to her. Every time she was making an aesthetic choice it was her very first time doing so. She was learning as she was doing. With the early painting she was painting for the joy of creating. After it became a big deal other factors started to creep in, factors that are great at destroying artists and their works. It is very hard to be creative when you are being forced to be self-conscious.

I commend Marla's parents for keeping her as sheltered from the outside noise as possible and was glad to see that Marla at fifteen years old is a well adjusted teen who continues to be involved in the Arts. The thing to remember is the parents didn't seek out this circus. They showed some paintings to some friends and it snowballed into this parade of art ignorant media like Charley Rose and 60 minutes casting doubt with their totally unqualified observations. I mean, doesn't 60 Minutes have more important topics to tackle than their totally off-base 'debunking' of a child prodigy and her parents?

When the Olmstead's showed Marla's paintings they probably thought it'd be great if she sold one or two. They thought this would great for eventually getting Marla into a good art school. They didn't expect and more importantly, didn't ask for the circus that would show up at their door. And I totally dismiss any accusations of Marla's parents behaving 'shady'. What I saw was a couple that was totally out of their element, being forced to be 'defensive' and doing the best they could to protect their family and their family's good name.

The 8 stars are for Marla and her family. The two point deduction is for the documentary director and his totally off base judgements. I want to finish by saying I hope Marla stays in the Arts. She has talent and I hope she gets to enjoy that.

I'm a big fan of the original with Patrick Swayze. I thought Jake Gyllenhaal was perfect casting for a remake. What I envisioned was the original's cheese with tone correct, modern 'John Wick' style fight scenes and a Rom/Com underneath. That's exactly what i got... until halfway into the picture. Then everything went horribly wrong.

For no reason things got very dark. This Dalton isn't a good guy who has to be pushed to fight. This Dalton is a full fledged sociopath who will murder with no remorse. He's the UFC's Ted Bundy. I don't know who thought the audiences that would watch this movie would just LOVE being tricked into a serial killer movie. Whoever it was, was an complete idiot.

I had this movie at a solid 7 pushing toward an 8. Then the points kept coming steadily off the board. The fights scenes are oddly cartoonish and horribly gruesome. And they were almost all fights to the death. The body count in this thing is significant.

The crooked sheriff's worst move in this whole movie was not arresting Dalton. This homicidal psychotic needs to be kept in a cage at the very least.

In what I think was meant to be the movie's tagline, the owner comes in with two bodies on ground and says, 'It's not so bad'. That's how insane this movie got.

You totally stop caring for any of the characters because the action is so ridiculous, brutal and unfunny. They totally tanked the picture's credibility.

This was a slam dunk and they blew it. Why they let it go that way is beyond me. If you think you're gonna a have a great date night, with action for the guys and beefcake for the girls, this ain't it.

It ain't a Rom and it ain't a Com and I really can't recommend it.

Make no mistake, this is a horror movie. A lot of the horror is conveyed through sound, the constant cacophony of the Auschwitz killing machine. The roar of incinerators,, random gun shots and screams of the victims on 'the other side of the wall' are the film's soundtrack. The Commandant's family is deaf to this sound, as they live a life of luxury. This film is one of the clearest illustrations of the banality of evil.

The film is beautifully shot in a sort of hyper-real style. While not being derivative. The cinematography reminded me of Kubrick. This is a story about monsters told in a detached, almost documentary style. There are no big dramatic scenes, just a relentless grind.

One of the most monstrous of the Nazi monsters is Rudolph Höss' wife, Hedwig. She is one of the most chilling Nazis ever put on screen. When her mother visits she brags that she is called 'The Queen of Auschwitz'. She runs her house on slave labor from the inmates.

She's cruel and totally self-absorbed, a true Nazi sociopath. Rudolph on the other hand is an empty suit. He goes about his task of mass murder like an accountant going over numbers. He is a character totally lacking in conscience.

The film has an artistic touch in its depiction of one of the local girls who stashes fruit in work areas outside camp. At first I thought it was a fantasy scene or one of the children's dreams. The thermal photography made the action stand out, sort of like the girl in the red coat in 'Schindler's List'. That kindness is totally alien to the rest of the film.

I have a hard time making it through holocaust movies. I usually have to take a break about halfway though. I thought that might happen, here, but it didn't. 'The Zone of Interest' is an incredible movie very much in the same league as films like Schindler's List' and 'The Pianist'. Not an easy watch but very worthwhile.

The performances are top notch. That's what really drives this series. The concept is great and timely. The satire that was used worked. The writing is were this series failed.

They really couldn't have created a better vehicle for satire. 'Authoritarian regime in Middle Europe country unravels'. It's a concept that writes large passages for you. Where they fail is in the payoffs. It's okay to leave some things open for people to figure out but they leave huge unanswered questions.

They failed to realize that Agnes was the beating heart of the show. That character's story should've been equal to Harold and Elana's. They tease that Agnes is on the way to do something big and then just yank the plug. Leaving her and her son's fate unresolved is almost a cardinal writing sin.

And I'm not saying the show wasn't a fun watch. It kept me interested and amused the entire series. It's just you start ticking off the missed opportunities.

It's a series that always seems like it's on the verge of soaring but then fails to leave the ground. It ends up being a standard A-B-A plot line except there's nothing learned at the end.

The ads for this documentary make you think there is some big crime that's going to be discovered. There isn't.

A big part of the video is self-proclaimed 'internet sleuths' complaining about how they were treated online. This is NOT a 'true crime' documentary and never should've been marketed as such.

The real story was about an unidentified hiker that was found dead from starvation. The video gives the impression that once they discover the identity of the hiker a great mystery, possibly a murder, will be solved. There is no great mystery. It's just a guy who came from a badly dysfunctional family who had some abusive relationships with women and then decided to drop off the grid. That's it.

I can see no reason why anyone would think this story was worth the time, effort and money to make a documentary. I think this is the beginning of the 'Selfie' generation thinking that every little thing they come across is worthy of documenting just because they came across it. They need to grow up.

This doc is a waste of time and never should've made it to HBO.

This movie is based on the premise, 'What if the kid in 'Home Alone' was a sociopath?' Now, this could've had a lot of potential for a dark comedy. Where the filmmakers take it is just creepy and unfunny.

This movie fails not because of the actors or the premise but because of the writing and tone. The tone is all wrong. The movie is difficult to watch because it deals with an underage kid who's fixated with his babysitter. His interactions with her are very inappropriate and makes you wince instead of laugh.

Another big part of problem is the films marketing would lead you believe this IS a horror movie version of 'Home Alone' with a teenage kid and babysitter vs. Home invaders. You are jolted 20 minutes in when it is revealed this is not the case.

Levi Miller puts in a strong performance as Luke and plays said sociopath with gusto. That really only made things worse because it drags the movie away from comedy and into more conventional thriller territory. Olivia DeJonge as Ashley does a good job as the babysitter in a no win situation. The content and tone of this movie is just inappropriate. It asks questions it has no hope of answering and just makes us endure a creepy, uncomfortable ride.

While there is a 'last laugh' moment at the end you're left to figure out how all this plays out. The carnage that's been inflicted far outweighs the light tone of the ending.

I thought this movie was very entertaining. Olivia Wilde is a talented director and I look forward to her next film.

I think if this movie had come out without the accompanying, seemingly endless off screen drama it would've have been better received by the public. The movie itself is good, with great performances from Pugh and Pine. Pugh in particular is mesmerizing and her performance helps carry the film. It's beautifully shot by Matthew Libatique in a hyper-real style.

Olivia Wilde's direction is very strong. It's clear she had a grip on the material and delivers a biting, surreal, social satire wrapped in a thriller. The story is somewhat derivative of 'The Stepford Wives' as is the film's final message. It's still original enough to keep us guessing.

There is some 'woke feminism' in it that I didn't care for. One of the female characters kills one of the film's villains so women can take over. I guess it doesn't matter that the world's a lie if women are in charge. Scratchin' my head over that one.

Overall, it's a good film and definitely worth a watch.