Hmmm. I watched this again recently hoping that it wasn't as mediocre as I had thought first time around. Sadly, not. The opening scenes are great: a good fight with lots of action and lightsabres; then it descends into a sort of cross between "Ben Hur" and "The Golden Child" with some pantomime thrown in too. The film is clearly designed to be part one of another trilogy and as such spends way too much of it's time setting the scenes and establishing the characters for the films to follow. We do start to get a sense of the evil "Palpatine" and it looks spectacular, but it is basically pretty empty and soulless with a very weak storyline.

MORE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
Rewatching it before OBI-WAN KENOBI.
Even ignoring the lack of narrative impact of THE PHANTOM MENACE in Luke Skywalker's journey, it still doesn't work for me. The climactic lightsaber fight and the podracing are cool, but the terrible dialogue, awful editing, Jar Jar, and the f****** midi-chlorians ruin the whole thing.
I'm not as annoyed by Anakin as others, though. Nor Padmé, I actually like her character. However, when most of the script consists of extremely boring political meetings or scenes with an overreliance on - now dated - CGI, most performances feel the same: emotionless.
John Williams' score is THE big plus. "Duel of the Fates" is going to be remembered forever. It genuinely saves the movie from being an absolute disaster, to be honest. If not for the poor editing choices, the final act would have been much, much better.
Rating: D+

So I watched this at a midnight screening when it was released (the first time midnight screenings happened...).
The blast of horns for John Willams' score occurred and the title scrawl happened, droidikas appeared - I had a buzz going.
But that buzz got less and less as the film wore on. Jar Jar appeared...and then Anakin trying to crack onto Padme...Darth Maul appeared and I got excited, but the dialogue continued like a child had written it and the excitement had dissipated by the time the Pod Race started.
It was the first time I had really been deeply disappointed by a movie.
The came the Lego Star Wars games...and this movie became alright. Probably because Lucas had made this film for kids (hence the overly simple plot and dialogue), is why it worked so well with Lego characters miming scenes.
I have watched this now countless times as a part of the 4-6, 1-3 order of Vader being a villain, redeeming himself and then becoming a villain. And my appreciation of it has grown a little.
The CGI for the time was great - it has become old though; and the movie relies on this too much, so some scenes do not feel grounded (or have people looking into space rather than at a character).
Im now OK with the pod race as a homage to Ben Hur - the details that have been thrown into it are grand, and it is a good length for the film.
And I really like that Lucas tried to expand what goes on in this universe. He started the world building quite well, but this meant A LOT of exposition to catch people up on how things are different to 4-6. I dont mind that, there was a lot of exposition in 4 as well.
And as always, Lucas put in details that you didnt expect, like Yoda's comments to ObiWan that he could see QuiGon in him, or the spinning parts in C3PO, or R2's introduction and his quippy nature from the start. Setting part of the film on Tatooine is actually smart (Anakin hates it, so Vader wouldnt go searching there between 3-4). And having a planet that is not just a desert, or show, or a forest, or lava, or a city, but that is like Earth is refreshing in this series. I dont even mind the Midichlorian comcept - why wouldnt an advanced society try to find out how "magic" happens and find a way to test for it?
But you can also see the things where Lucas just tried toooo hard- they stand out like nothing else. And here are the usual topics for this film - JarJar, having to go to Atlantis (you could take both of these things out and the plot and character development wouldnt change at all), the under-developed plot and dialogue, Anakin being "bratty". The Pod Race also feels kind of superfluous - written into the plot as Lucas wanted to "homage."
And Ill give it credit for actually trying to do something and expand the universe (unlike the dreadful Ep 7, but thats another story). There are consequences in this universe and foreshadowing of some things to come. we got to see how the Jedi worked in their prime (and moreso in Ep 2).
As movies go, this one is really mixed. But it is a great computer game.

A huge drop off the original trilogy. I still like it, mind.
I do have split feelings about 'Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace' though. One positive is the casting, which is well done.
Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor are strong choices to enter the franchise, I enjoyed both of them. Jake Lloyd does a fine job in his role, while the likes of Terence Stamp, Samuel L. Jackson and Keira Knightley also feature. Natalie Portman appears too, but I honestly never really cared for her lot's side of the story. Ahmed Best, meanwhile, is very hit-and-miss as Jar Jar Binks.
Speaking of Binks, the CGI is rather iffy in this fourth installment of 'Star Wars'. Of course it did come out in 1999, but other films from that era and beyond have aged better in these terms. The score is, at least, more than up to scratch.
Overall, I'm OK with this but it most definitely should've been far greater. Some scenes do go on for too long, while I did find a lack of a serious threat for the first chunk of the film. Darth Maul looks the part, but ends up being rather forgettable.
I can see how diehard fans of the series could be disappointed by this.

This is a terrible, terrible movie. I'm amazed that A) Lucas made a film like this, knowing how beloved the franchise was, and B) that the franchise remained so beloved after this had come out... It introduced Maul though, who is my favourite _Star Wars_ character. So points on that one.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

***Solid return of the franchise after 16 years, highlighted by Liam Neeson***
A Jedi Knight & his apprentice (Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor) escape a blockade with their new Gungan friend, Jar Jar Binks, and the handmaiden of Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman). Upon damaging their vessel, they find sanctuary on a planet where they meet a slave boy, a gifted pilot and engineer, who may be the prophesied “Chosen One.” Meanwhile, the supposedly extinct Sith resurface, including Darth Maul (Ray Park).
"Star Wars: Episode 1 – The Phantom Menace" (1999) is the fourth Star Wars film and the first of the prequel trilogy, followed by “Attack of the Clones” (2002) and “Return of the Sith” (2005). It marked writer/director George Lucas’ return to the popular franchise after 16 years, the previous film being “Return of the Jedi” (1983).
Star Wars is fantasy packaged as science-fiction or “space fantasy” whereas Star Trek is dramatic science-fiction in a space-travel context. I’ve always preferred the latter because it’s more adult-oriented, but I don’t mind a Star Wars flick now and then and “The Phantom Menace” is entertaining enough.
There’s a new cast of characters along with a young version of Obi-Wan Kenobi and R2D2, C-3PO, Yoda and Jabba. Liam Neeson stands tall as the no-nonsense Qui-Gon Jinn, McGregor is solid and Portman is attractive at the young age of 17. Also notable is Hugh Quarshie as Captain Panaka.
I didn’t mind the loathed Jar Jar Binks and I enjoyed the wondrous underwater sequence and the thrilling podrace in the first half (even though the mother allowing her son to enter the life-and-death contest is unlikely, not to mention the Jedi knights condoning it). Unfortunately the climax comes down to the clichéd “big battle sequence” and it’s predictable who’s gonna die in the corresponding duel. Yawn. Still, “The Phantom Menace” is all-around entertaining if you have a taste for Star Wars.
The film runs 2 hours, 16 minutes.
GRADE: B-/B

Frankly, this film is terrible, and the producers were obviously banking on the original Star Wars coming back all excited, and didn't bother come up with a good story.
What's wrong? Well --
(1) The virtuous Obiwan Kenobi talks an admiring young boy to participate in a dangerous race so that he can bet on the boy and win the money he needs for his mission. Sounds like the later movie HUNGER GAMES, except that in HUNGER GAMES we're expected to despise people who bet on children's lives.
(2) The young boy befriends a teenage girl who is presumably 6 or 7 years older. Come the next movie, they're suddenly the same age so that they can have a love affair. Are they of different species that age at different rates, or did the writers simply not plan ahead?
(3) The boy's mother tells Obiwan that she gave birth to the boy without having sex. Having introduced this bizarre Christological symbolism, the writers promptly forget it.
(4) And there's a character named JarJar, who apparently has no function in the movie except to irritate a lot of the critics.

If it were the first "Star Wars" movie, "The Phantom Menace" would be hailed as a visionary breakthrough. But this is the fourth movie of the famous series, and we think we know the territory; many of the early reviews have been blase, paying lip service to the visuals and wondering why the characters aren't better developed. How quickly do we grow accustomed to wonders. I am reminded of the Isaac Asimov story "Nightfall," about the planet where the stars were visible only once in a thousand years. So awesome was the sight that it drove men mad. We who can see the stars every night glance up casually at the cosmos and then quickly down again, searching for a Dairy Queen.
"Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace," to cite its full title, is an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking. If some of the characters are less than compelling, perhaps that's inevitable: This is the first story in the chronology and has to set up characters who (we already know) will become more interesting with the passage of time. Here we first see Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, Yoda and R2-D2 and C-3PO. Anakin is only a fresh-faced kid in Episode I; in IV, V and VI, he has become Darth Vader.
At the risk of offending devotees of the Force, I will say that the stories of the "Star Wars" movies have always been space operas, and that the importance of the movies comes from their energy, their sense of fun, their colorful inventions and their state-of-the-art special effects. I do not attend with the hope of gaining insights into human behavior. Unlike many movies, these are made to be looked at more than listened to, and George Lucas and his collaborators have filled "The Phantom Menace" with wonderful visuals.
There are new places here--new kinds of places. Consider the underwater cities, floating in their transparent membranes. The Senate chamber, a vast sphere with senators arrayed along the inside walls, and speakers floating on pods in the center. And other places: the cityscape with the waterfall that has a dizzying descent through space. And the other cities: one city Venetian, with canals, another looking like a hothouse version of imperial Rome, and a third that seems to have grown out of desert sands.
Set against awesome backdrops, the characters in "The Phantom Menace" inhabit a plot that is little more complex than the stories I grew up on in science-fiction magazines. The whole series sometimes feel like a cover from Thrilling Wonder Stories, come to life. The dialogue is pretty flat and straightforward, although seasoned with a little quasi-classical formality, as if the characters had read but not retained "Julius Caesar." I wish the "Star Wars" characters spoke with more elegance and wit (as Gore Vidal's Greeks and Romans do), but dialogue isn't the point, anyway: These movies are about new things to look at.
The plot details (of embargoes and blockades) tend to diminish the size of the movie's universe--to shrink it to the scale of a 19th century trade dispute. The stars themselves are little more than pinpoints on a black curtain, and "Star Wars" has not drawn inspiration from the color photographs being captured by the Hubble Telescope. The series is essentially human mythology, set in space, but not occupying it. If Stanley Kubrick gave us man humbled by the universe, Lucas gives us the universe domesticated by man. His aliens are really just humans in odd skins. For "The Phantom Menace," he introduces Jar Jar Binks, a fully realized computer-animated alien character whose physical movements seem based on afterthoughts. And Jabba the Hutt (who presides over the Podrace) has always seemed positively Dickensian to me.
Yet within the rules he has established, Lucas tells a good story. The key development in "Phantom" is the first meeting between the Jedi Knight Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and the young Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd)--who is, the Jedi immediately senses, fated for great things. Qui-Gon meets Anakin in a store where he's seeking replacement parts for his crippled ship. Qui-Gon soon finds himself backing the young slave in a high-speed Podrace--betting his ship itself against the cost of the replacement parts. The race is one of the film's high points, as the entrants zoom between high cliff walls in a refinement of a similar race through metal canyons on a spaceship in "Star Wars." Why is Qui-Gon so confident that Anakin can win? Because he senses an unusual concentration of the Force--and perhaps because, like John the Baptist, he instinctively recognizes the one whose way he is destined to prepare. The film's shakiness on the psychological level is evident, however, in the scene where young Anakin is told he must leave his mother (Pernilla August) and follow this tall Jedi stranger. Their mutual resignation to the parting seems awfully restrained. I expected a tearful scene of parting between mother and child, but the best we get is when Anakin asks if his mother can come along, and she replies, "Son, my place is here." As a slave? The discovery and testing of Anakin supplies the film's most important action, but in a sense all the action is equally important, because it provides platforms for special-effects sequences. Sometimes our common sense undermines a sequence (for instance, when Jar Jar's people and the good guys fight a 'droid army, it becomes obvious that the droids are such bad fighters, they should be returned for a refund). But mostly I was happy to drink in the sights on the screen, in the same spirit that I might enjoy "Metropolis," "Forbidden Planet," "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Dark City" or "The Matrix." The difference is that Lucas' visuals are more fanciful and his film's energy level is more cheerful; he doesn't share the prevailing view that the future is a dark and lonely place.
What he does have, in abundance, is exhilaration. There is a sense of discovery in scene after scene of "The Phantom Menace," as he tries out new effects and ideas, and seamlessly integrates real characters and digital ones, real landscapes and imaginary places. We are standing at the threshold of a new age of epic cinema, I think, in which digital techniques mean that budgets will no longer limit the scope of scenes; filmmakers will be able to show us just about anything they can imagine.
As surely as Anakin Skywalker points the way into the future of "Star Wars," so does "The Phantom Menace" raise the curtain on this new freedom for filmmakers. And it's a lot of fun. The film has correctly been given the PG rating; it's suitable for younger viewers and doesn't depend on violence for its effects. As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day.
3.5/4
-Rodger Ebert

Though "Andy" hasn't played with his toys in many a year, he still can't bear to be parted with them as he heads to college, so he puts them in a bin bag destined for the attic. Unfortunately, mom mistakes it for unwanted stuff and outside they go. "Woody" was alone in being kept safe, and as he espies the bin lorry approaching, he has to dash to rescue his friends - only for them to end up in a day-care centre ("Sunnyside") where the other toys don't always play fair. The plot develops pretty much as expected as "Woody" tries to organise a rescue from the outside whilst the imprisoned toys try to make their own way back home. Never before have I considered that "Ken" (yep, Mr "Barbie") could be remotely menacing, nor that a pink teddy bear called "Lotso' could have a dominant streak a mile wide. Add to the mix, a recently reset "Buzz" who has forgotten just about everything and is now an enforcer, and this makes their break for freedom even harder. The script is quickly paced and witty, especially as the "prison" regime kicks in and the "box" becomes something akin to the "cooler" in a war film. This story deals a little more seriously with emotions of love and rejection but always in an humorous and engaging fashion - there is still plenty of fun and mischief to be had. I think this might be my favourite so far...

I don't love 'Toy Story 3' as much as its two predecessors. That doesn't mean that it isn't anything other than great though.
I enjoy the bountiful humour and intriguing plot, while the newly-introduced toys are very good. If I had to nitpick, I don't massively like Lotso, who kinda feels to me like a slight copy of The Prospector from the 1999 sequel - with the difference here being he's the ultimate antagonist, perhaps too villainous for my own personal taste. As I said though, just a tiny criticism in the grand scheme of these productions.
Tom Hanks remains on top form as Woody, as do all the others including Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) and Jessie (Joan Cusack). Ned Beatty does a terrific job as Lotso, while Barbie and Ken are brought to life well by Jodi Benson and Michael Keaton.
Once again there are some excellent scenes, with the ending also being entertaining just like in 'Toy Story 2'. There's also a lot of heart in the concluding scene. I'm surprised they did a fourth time, even if I do agree it's still a very good new instalment.
Pixar and Disney keep up a pretty remarkable high quality, even in the third film of the franchise. I will never tire watching these.

Just an all around wonderful and poignant sequel that surpasses the others. Great seeing the gang working together and the voice casting was, once again, perfect. While Toy Story 4 was good, this served as a great finale. **5.0/5**

When I first watched this nearly a decade ago in the cinema, I believe it was (and still is) the only movie I've ever watched in 3D that I've enjoyed. I was worried that it was that great theatrical experience I'd had that coloured my opinion of _Toy Story 3_ so positively, and that it wouldn't hold up to any further scutiny. But I gotta say, on re-watch? It **absolutely** holds up. In my opinion, **strong** contender for best work Pixar's ever put out.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

Just like any other Pixar movies, Toy Story 3 was great. The story flowed really well with the two Toy Story movies. And just like the two other movies, it was funny, has a lot of action and adventure, and it was really touching.
I guess at some point, everyone was able to relate to the story. That's why it's so great. It's great for young children and really great for adults. It's a good ending for the Toy Story movies.
My rate for this movie is A.

Great for the kids!

This films stars a 12-year old Natalie Portman as Mathilda, a girl living with her abusive stepfather, a step-sister, mother, and four-year old brother. She doesn’t care for any of these people except her brother. One day, she returns home from getting the groceries to find corrupt DEA agents have killed her entire family. Key amongst those agents is Stansfield, played by Gary Oldman. Seeking refuge in the flat of a neighbour she had befriended earlier, Léon (Jean Reno), she learns that he is a hitman. She makes a deal with him: she will look after the flat by doing the domestic chores if he will teach her how to get revenge on the men who killed her brother.
Strange though the synopsis may be, the relationship between Léon and Mathilda is kept innocent, and the scenes between the two are believable. Mathilda’s sexual awareness is at a nascent stage and her exposure to the sordid side of life with her recently deceased family (her step-father worked for drug-dealers) means she is perhaps not as innocent as most 12-year old girls; however, Léon is unwilling to take advantage of the situation. This means the story can focus on the platonic relationship between the two, the bond that develops between them, and how each affects the other’s life.
Although it may seem a little far-fetched that a young girl would accompany a hitman during his work, Léon ensures that her assistance is required only on fairly routine hits that follow a well-defined pattern. For the more complex hits he leaves her behind.
There is a thread of humour running through the film, but you must bear in mind the film is framed in the world of corruption and greed and all is not sweet and light, and graphic violence is depicted.
Jean Reno is wonderful as the extremely good but placid hitman, whose whole outlook on life is changed by the young Mathilda, played wonderfully by Natalie Portman in her first film. I’ve not read it, but I understand that Eppie has a similar effect on Silas Marner, as described in the book of the same name. I found Gary Oldman’s performance histrionic, the only let-down in the film, albeit not something that spoilt the film as a whole.
Recommended.

HOW TO MAKE A FEMALE ASSASSIN. TRAUMA, TRAINING THEN GET HER EXTRA ANGRY. NATILIE PORTMANS FIRST ASSASSIN ROLE AND HOPEFULLY NOT HER LAST. WE NEED A PART 2 TO THIS MOVIE.

Wes Anderson's THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL is the director's celebration of Central Europe culture and fashion in the years between the World Wars, and an elegy for what was lost with the rise of fascism and communism. Set in 1932 in a fictional country called Zubrowka, the streets, military regalia and (ersatz) German names we are shown could have come from anywhere between Germany and Estonia. Its protagonist Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes) is a concierge at the eponymous luxury hotel, the splendour of which disappeared, we are told, with World War II. Gustave H. is known publicly as one of the best concierges in the business, able to dash around the hotel at lightning speed to satisfy the most varied guests of the elite clientele. Privately, he's a rake with a rather foul mouth, and fond of bedding the rich old women who patronize the establishment. When one of those old ladies, Madame Céline Villeneuve Desgoffe und Taxis (Tilda Swinton) dies and Gustave is framed for her murder, he must evade the law and unmask the true culprit, with the help of newly hired lobby boy Zero Mustafa (Tony Revolori).
The films of Wes Anderson are known for their immense visual detail, and THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL is no exception. The elaborate framing of shots, the myriad cute items to look at on every set, and the architectural detail are like a diorama blown up to the big screen. Curiously, that visual detail is matched to a real slackness in the human characterization. Anderson has brought in a large number of actors he had worked with before, including Adrien Brody, Jeff Goldblum, Ed Norton, and Bill Murray, for roles that range from the main villain to little more than cameos. These characters are never fleshed out like Gustave H. or Zero Mustafa, and the actors don't even try to pass themselves off as Central Europeans from the entre deux guerres. Instead Adrien Brody plays Adrien Brody, etc.
There are two supporting roles that I felt were stronger. William Defoe plays a nearly mute henchman whose look is a nod to early vampire films (Transylvania was Central Europe, too). More remarkable is Harvey Keitel's turn as an old prisoner: when so many handsome leading men try to hide the effects of time after they enter their sunset years, 75-year-old Keitel was not afraid to show the ravages of old age here.
Unfortunately, I found the 21st-century Americans strutting about (and a few speaking in rough New York accents) in a historical drama to be jarring. I was also disappointed by the resort to Hollywood tropes here, when Anderson's earlier films managed to be very quirky and sui generis. For example, did we really need not just one scene where a character is hanging off a cliff's edge as the villain stands over him, but two? And the amount of plot details that are introduced but never really explained makes one feel that the work was subject to some heavy cuts to please a studio.
Still, if you liked Wes Anderson's earlier films, you'll find much to enjoy in his dollhouse approach, and it is amazing how every one of his films has a completely new and fresh visual theming even if his quasi-autistic obsession with prettiness never changes. Another thing I liked about the film is its "story within a story within a story". The entire plot of Gustave H. is, we are shown, taken from a fictionalized treatment by a writer who met a middle-aged Mustafa (F. Murray Abraham) in the 1960s. Befitting this novelistic layer -- and the work of Stefan Zweig that Anderson credits for inspiration -- this framing story is written in stilted, unrealistic dialogue like an old-time novel. And the aspect ratio changes for each layer of the film, a little treat for cinema anoraks.

Yet another well crafter Wes Anderson's movie. Fiennes and Revolori perform well and the amount of well known actors and actresses is incredible but we have seen similar ways and scripts in his previous movies.
It's entertaining, though.

Lucifer" is a woeful excuse for a television series, a devilish descent into the depths of mediocrity that leaves its audience longing for salvation from its torturous plot and laughable attempts at wit.
At its core, "Lucifer" revolves around the most overused and unoriginal concept imaginable: the Devil himself forsaking his infernal throne to play detective in Los Angeles. It's a premise that would make even the most dedicated connoisseur of the supernatural cringe in embarrassment. Instead of offering a fresh take on the age-old battle between good and evil, the show falls flat with its trite, uninspired narrative.
The acting in "Lucifer" is nothing short of painful. Tom Ellis's portrayal of Lucifer Morningstar is more irritating than charismatic, leaving viewers yearning for a more captivating devil to grace the screen. The supporting cast fares no better, with performances that range from wooden to outright cringe-worthy. The attempts at humour are so forced and awkward that they often elicit groans instead of laughs.
The show's writing is equally abysmal. The dialogue is filled with clunky one-liners and contrived attempts at clever wordplay that would make even the most hackneyed stand-up comedian wince. The attempts at exploring moral and ethical dilemmas are shallow at best, reducing complex issues to simplistic and predictable resolutions.
One of the most egregious offenses of "Lucifer" is its blatant misuse of religious and mythological elements. The show's portrayal of celestial and infernal realms is nothing short of sacrilegious, reducing profound religious themes to nothing more than a backdrop for mediocre crime-solving escapades. It's disrespectful to both religious believers and those who appreciate thoughtful storytelling.
The special effects and production values are subpar, to say the least. The supernatural elements, including Lucifer's wings and powers, are rendered with all the finesse of a low-budget B-movie. The show's depiction of hell is equally underwhelming, lacking the grandeur or terror that one would expect.
In summary, "Lucifer" is a satanic series in the worst sense of the word—a soulless, uninspired, and downright painful viewing experience. It takes a potentially intriguing premise and squanders it on a poorly executed, cringe-inducing mess of a show. If you value your time and sanity, steer clear of this devilish disaster of a series.

I started watching this a few months ago as I found it on Netflix. I watched the trailer and thought it looked very interesting. I thought I would watch just one or two episodes each day or whenever I had time. Man, I was wrong. I ended up watching half of the first season that day, then the second half the next. A couple of days later I began looking into buying the DVDs. And the series was finished a few months later. I would recommend this to anyone who has seen Izombie (has the same crime concept) or anyone who loves Supernatural-type shows.

This show started in 2016 and has six seasons, ending(?) 2021. It turned to trash around the end of the 2nd or 3rd seasons.
The storytelling for the show or premise was a mortal female cop having to work with the Devil to solve crimes. The Devil is on earth because he became fed up with his role as Hell's Ruler. And the writers did very well with the Lucifer character. Many aspects to the Devil being supernatural came through wonderfully for the audience, one profound trait being _Lucifer_ (**Tom Ellis**) refusing, or being under an angel geas, to be unable to speak a lie; so he goes around telling people the truth about who he is. Not fighting this, or speaking around the truth makes the facet a very comically astute trait to the character for the show. The way other mortal characters react to the news which is either to dismiss the claim outright or gloss over it as ramblings completes the humor; especially when they realize the truth through some supernatural display from the Devil himself. And ofcourse the female detective, _Chloe Decker_ (**Lauren German**) also does not believe him, her job being based solely in proof and fact--evidence. While there are numerous instances producing evidence to Lucifer's claim on who is, the detective still (ofcourse) can't believe it. That is until Lucifer insist on proving it to Chloe directly. To both their surprise, he finds out he can be injured when she is within close proximity to the Prince of Hell.
The show did very well, even if one could foresee where hetero partnerships in tv shows eventually go. That is foregone. It's how the show gets the audience there which determines if there will be a following season. And I will admit, I did not like the show. I felt it to be a bit contrived, BUT worth giving a chance. I, personally, thought the devil could be a bit more of a bad-ass; instead of just what the guy appeared to be, a cocktail party pianoist.
Other aspects of Lucifer's divinity were introduced such as soul-deals being made, other angels, and eventually demons. The first introduction to Lucifer's astranged family was _Amenidiel_ (**D.B. Woodside**), brother, self-proclaimed greatest warrior of heaven's Silver City, and the right-hand hatchet man for God. My first "dark cloud" of foreboding on the show peeked through when I heard Amenidiel address the Devil with the nick-name: (...jeez) "Luci." Pronounced "Lucy." But I (with effort) dismissed it. I told myself "GIVE it a chance." I did, and the show did not fail to deliver entertainment.
Ellis and German's characters have good chemistry in front of the camera, and the plethora of well-known TV stars featured in the episodes, kept everyones' attention and pleased to look forward to the next show. Other characters to become regulars co-stars include Lucifer's right-hand, the head Executioner of Hell (...sighs) Maze. _Maze_ is played by **Lesley-Ann Brandt** from cable tv's hit NC-17 rated show, _Spartacus_. Maze's character is easily summed up (in a good way) as kung-fu Biker Bitch with knives and a penchant for extreme BDSM when in a good mood. When she is in a bad mood she fills the role of Amenidiel's mirror opposite for the Devil. The two are not on the same power level, with Amenidiel being the top warrior angel, but when earthbound, Maze has the upper hand in dealing with and understanding humans.
There is _Dan Espenoza_ (**Kevin Alejandro** -- whose credited filmography is very strong in TVseries) as Chloe's ex-crooked detective husband, and their daughter _Trixie Espenoza_ (**Scarlett Estavez**). Also introduced is Lucifer's psychiatrist, _Dr. Linda Martin_ (**Rachel Harris**), whom which Lucifer constantly misinturpret's her advice she futiley tries to guide him with. Lastly was the (I think) sudden appearence of character _Ella Lopez_ (**Aimee Garcia**). The plucky and "loveable" forensic specialist. All these characters make up a pretty good cast and the writers did the show and characters justice. The show looked promising, until...[que sound bite] >DUNT, DUNT, DUUUUUUUUUUHHHH!!!!!< The third season began.
**WARNING:** This review gets more personable from here, meaning if you like the show, the following will come off as a bunch of whining & complaining. If you feel take-it-or-leave-it about the show then there will be some "Oh yeah" moments. If the show had you at a point to where you throw your hands up like a BlackJack dealer leaving the table, then I appreciate the high-fives.
When the show goes down hill...My most glaring complaint was Amenidiel getting Dr. Linda Martin pregnant. I mean, c'MON!!! Woodside is 52 and I would have thought this guy was going _into his 40s_ ; not leaving. Harris is 54. And she looks _every bit_ of closing her late fifties!! When I first saw the woman as the shrink I thought, "She is too old to be wearing her hair that long." And it was a sad attempt, just like later with Lucifer's "mother" being introduced, at making a woman not look her age. When it is sooooo apparent she is the oldest person on the cast. But this season happened when Liberal-Left thinkers were in full speed ahead and forcing ideals of interracial dating, virtue-signaling, inclusivity of the "alphabet people" into the viewing audience's faces as if Gay Judgement Day were at hand. And along with Dr. Martin's geriatric defience of science (bars) came Maze's sudden ability to kiss women. It wasn't a big stretch seeing as demons are not known for having a concept of shame, propriety, or morals but the clam-to-clam thing is NOT as endearing as the writers may think. Girl-on-Girl stuff is exciting IN adult movies and R-rated movies; typically where nudity is involved. Seen in any other muted venue, and...it's just...ew.
Next complaint was the shoe-horning in of the forensic specialist, Ella Lopez. I say it that way because the show goes through an _entire_ season before this character is introduced. And when she does hit the scene, Garcia's makes her character come across as too personally familiar with the main characters to the point of being overbearing. It's...off-putting to say the least. It's like literally _no one_ knows who this chick is, and since she is coming in on the SECOND season after all the other characters are established in the first season, the vibe leaves the viewer thinking, "Jeez, this chick is severely un-professional, and a borderline sociopath. No one (in the viewership) knows you 'Ella!' You have no previous interactions with the main characters!! Why are you acting like the three of you had beers two nights earlier??" She is a stranger to the audience and the main characters, BUT she's the forensic specialist and now they _have_ to talk to her whether the audience likes her or not. So, there's that.
The third and fourth seasons are not bad if you can exclude the ever growing Liberal agenda being shoved into everyone's faces. Charlie, Amenidiel's son gets kidnapped because demons come looking for a new ruler of Hell. Lucifer's mother is trying to fit in with humans, and gets involved with Dan. Lopez is having existential crisis because she dated a psycho. And Lucifer after getting his mother to begin her own plain of existence, returns to Hell as it's ruler.
> **The third and fourth seasons moved along, but then the fourth season had to end with God becoming _senile!?_ Loosing his powers..!? Then _joining_ his wife in her reality to be essentially a stay-at-home dad!?! As Bill Cosby would say, "What in the filth-flarn-filth is going on with this show!?!" Yeah. I didn't have high hopes for the following season. And I was right.**
The fifth season has Lucifer as a bumbling idiot, blamed for being an absentee father by a daughter (**Briana Hildebrand** -- Negasonic Teenage Warhead--[though a lot chunkier now], _Deadpool_), he never knew about, from the future. She claims he disappeared before she was born; abandoning a pregnant Decker. And let's just cast aside all that lore about the apocalypse should Lucifer ever beget a woman with child. No, let's look past Lucifer making a fool of himself trying to assuage this young lady's misplaced anger over something he apparently had no choice or control. Let's forget he lied to her in the second episode, something he is not supposed to be able to do, about him knowing she was his. Hey, she's angry, gay--because ofcourse, her father wasn't around--, and something of an ungrateful bitch; so that means she can act out however she wants. >eyeroll< Maze and Eve are getting married >eghk< when suddenly Eve's ex-husband, Adam, shows up.
And unlike her, he's whiter than Johnny Appleseed & Wonderbread put together. I thought this was supposed to inclusive & diverse...?? The one thing I can say about Woke-Hollywood nowadays, is that if a white guy is on the scene you can gar-rown-tee he's a bad guy. Don't believe me, just ask Cain (season 3). You'd think Woke-Hollywood would be able to stick to their marshmellow guns and find a well-tanned good looking Hispanic or Hindu to play Adam. But noooooo. It's not a show if you don't reveal how evil the white man can be.
Yeah, Much like this review, Lucifer went on waaaaaaay too long. I gave it 2 out 5 stars because I liked the first 3 seasons. After that, the show has my condolences.

It's trash..Just like other 98.5% of Netflix shows.

**The family of immortal on the Earth.**
**SEASON 02:**
When I watched the first season when it was originally aired, it had some serious fan following, but I won't say it was very very famous at the time. Now, after the second season, seems everything has changed. Drastically the votings, rating, reviews have increased. IF one more season with similarly powerful characters, story comes out, then it surely would be among the greatest like 'Dexter', 'Breaking Bad' et cetera. I am confident it will go up to the seventh to set up a perfect finale in the next half decade.
I did not review the first season, because I was not sure it would get better in the following season. I thought it was a one season thing. Now I'm here with awesome progression in the second season. I loved every episode. I've rated a few of them are out of out as they are well deserved. Firstly, for this to get better was the characters. A couple of new ones added. Not some sidekicks, but yes, they were with a stronger hold in the main narration.
I loved Charlotte, the Lucifer's mother. That's the best thing happened here. Particularly the casting for it was the best pick. Tricia Helfer was like never seen before hot. The way the season ended was sad, if you had loved her. I hope she returns none other than as Charlotte in the future. Aimee Garcia was another highlitable cast. Her inclusion makes the crime fighting more interesting. She's a mini Dexter, without the dark desires.
Each episode was unique, but the overall story flow was excellent, unlike the previous season where each episode has one crime to solve. Here too with the same style, but some time extended further for the next part. There was an aim for story to head, but the way it was presented was good. Shared it all throughout the season, while each episode had its own agenda. Lots of humours, as well as actions, adventures, suspense and a bit romantic.
So, if you haven't started, it's time to do so, because as I said it will be one of the best television programme on making that you should not miss while you have chance to follow from the beginning itself. All the actors were great, a well written and shot series. The season's finale and its final scene created more curiosity in me going to the third. I'm hoping for another magnificent season, which is due in a couple of months at the end of the year (2017). Highly recommended!
_9/10_

A similar style to Inception, pay attention or you’ll lose it

I reckon what makes this work from Christopher Nolan is the creation of a cerebral maelstrom that is every bit as confusingly frustrating for us watching as it is for his protagonist "Leonard" (Guy Pearce). Now we don't know how he has developed his menacing ninja skills, but we do know that he is trying to get to the bottom of his wife's murder, and that he has virtually no short-term memory to help him. As he pieces things together, he has to leave himself notes, or polaroids augmented with scribbles so he can recall just how far he has got and whom he can (or cannot) trust. The facts that he considers crucial are tattooed across his body as his search narrows - or does it? Along the way he meets some characters that he has some documentation on - some, not. Some he advises himself to trust, some not. Some of the photos depict dead bodies. On those fronts, we do have just a little more information on the cause tan he does - but it doesn't really help anyone deduce who did kill his wife? Maybe he did it himself? Its a maze of a film this. It's littered with twists and complications - but they are not annoying nor gratuitous. It's the ultimate in cinematic one step forward two steps back, and those muddled scenarios are only emphasised by "Natalie" (Carrie-Anne Moss) and an on-form Joe Pantoliano as "Teddy" - a man who features increasingly as his quest proceeds. I also did enjoy the ending. It avoids the concrete and the simplistic, and offers a fitting end to a potently effective effort from a Pearce at the top of his game.

Phenomenal.
What a movie! I had heard plenty about 'Memento' prior to watching in regards to how high-quality it supposedly was, though didn't actually (thankfully) get spoiled on anything that occurs onscreen - I did know of the note-taking, though for some reason thought it was via post-it notes rather than polaroids - no idea why!
It's a very satisfying movie come the conclusion, concentration is very much the order of the day but the film does connect enough dots rather sharpish. I thoroughly appreciated the ending itself, Guy Pearce delivers the final moments supremely. Speaking of he, I've not seen much of him before but this is a terrific lead performance!
Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss are excellent in their respective roles too, even Stephen Tobolowsky and Harriet Sansom Harris manage to leave an imprint on my mind despite much less screen time; first time I've seen Harris in anything properly since I was in my teens a decade or so ago, always remember her great showing in 'Desperate Housewives' (interestingly the first television show I ever got into, it's quality, don't @ me 😎).
Anyway, back on track... Christopher Nolan - some director, eh?! I'd put this right in my top three ranking of his work, behind 'Inception' and 'Interstellar'. Such a fulfilling movie! I hope for similar-ish with his other pictures in 'Insomnia' and 'The Prestige', two flicks I know absolutely zilch about. I don't anticipate that Mr. Nolan will let me down at this point.

Structuring the film in such a way that the viewer knows as little as the protagonist, the Nolan's have created a nifty puzzle that slowly unravels to its climax.
8/10

‘Memento’ is director Christopher Nolan’s tribute to classic film noir tales of revenge and mystery. By adding a new twist to traditional conventions, Nolan is able to consume and grip the viewer throughout the entire film and for years after. The aspect that differentiates this neo-noir from its competitors today is its jumbled and complex narrative which continually moves backwards in time. The viewers first see the main character complete his revenge murder (a triumphant scene we usually associate with the ending of film noirs). We then begin to see events unfold backwards and the reason for this becomes clear.
Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) and his wife are attacked in their home. His wife is murdered but Guy Pearce is left with a brain condition that disables him from creating anymore short-term memory. Constantly being reminded of the horror of the situation, he is relentlessly spurred on to get his revenge on his wife’s killer. As the viewer progresses through the film, they begin to feel more and more like Lenny. The audience have no idea of what has happened prior to the scene currently showing and so we are left feeling the same confusion as our protagonist. To cope with his condition, he maintains a system of notes, photographs, and tattoos to record information about himself and others, including his wife's killer. He is aided in his investigation by "Teddy" (Joe Pantoliano) and Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss), neither of whom he can really trust (both of the latter actors starred together in ‘The Matrix (1999)’ in which Pantoliano was not to be trusted, disorientating the informed viewer more).
The film's events unfold in two separate, alternating narratives—one in colour, and the other in black and white. Leonard's investigation is depicted in five-minute colour sequences that are in reverse chronological order, however, the short black and white scenes are shown in chronological order and show Leonard on the phone to a mysterious stranger having a conversation that the viewers cannot understand (these sequences are more direct references to the film noir genre that Christopher Nolan is embracing). This style of directing makes the audience completely empathise with Leonard’s situation as you never know more than he does, but also it creates huge comedic and emotional moments which rely heavily on the notion of dramatic irony.
With Nolan’s use of handheld camera work, an overtone of pink colouring, and sharp editing (the only transition effects in use are occasional fade outs) the viewer is made to feel disorientated and is therefore able to empathise more with Leonard’s character. The original idea was a short story by Nolan’s brother, Jonathan who also helped with the screenplay. The dialogue in the film is its best feature with its insightful, powerful and heart-wrenching speeches about the nature of memory. As we learn how we rely upon memory for our sense of reality, we begin to question reality itself. The idea of faith and constant references to the bible can make the entire film a metaphor for people’s faith in Christianity or any other religion at that.
★★★★★

Excellent. I can't believe I've finally gotten around to watching all of Christopher Nolan's films (I have 'The Prestige' on DVD, but have yet to see it), but it's been well worth the wait. There are a couple of handful of English-language directors operating right now that I will make sure I watch every single film of, and Nolan has become one of those for me, and rightfully so. A very fine twist on the noir framework.

We all lie to ourselves to be happy.
It's not until a film like Memento comes along, or that you personally have to deal with someone close who suffers a form of this subject to hand, that you get jolted to remember just how your memory is such a prized and treasured thing - and crucially that it's one of your key safety devices.
Christopher and Jonathan Nolan crafted one of the best films of 2000 based on those facets of the human condition. Their protagonist is Leonard Shelby, played with stupendous believability by Guy Pearce, who is suffering from a memory amnesia caused by a trauma to the head as he tried to aide his wife who was raped and murdered. He can remember things before the incident, but anything post that and he can't form a memory. So who can he trust? Does he know any of the few people who appear to be in his life at the present time? He tattoos his body to help him remember, constantly writes notes to keep him alert in his now alien world, while all the time he is on the search for the man who ruined his life.
Christopher Nolan plants the audience right into Leonard's world. By using a reverse story telling structure it's deliberately complex and ingenious given that it opens with the ending! It has been argued that it's trickery for trickery sake, style over substance, but the way each scene is built upon in the narrative is a thing of high quality, it's all relevant and demands the closest of attention from the viewer, where cheekily we are ourselves asked to form memories of prior narrative passages. Mystery is strong throughout, the characters currently in Leonard's life may have different means and motives, it keeps us alert, with the confusion, lies, manipulations, enigmas and amnesia angles booming with neo-noir vibrancy. And the Nolan's know their noir of course, adding a narrator who is hard to define or trust himself!
The reverse structure wasn't new in 2000, but Christopher Nolan picks up the idea and adds new strands to it, simultaneously bringing his visual ticks as David Julyan's musical score shifts from elegiac forebodings to pulse pounding dread, and as evidenced by the darling easter egg option that allows one to watch it in chronological order, it's a damn fine thriller without the reverse trickery anyway. Super. 9/10