Amir Natan

The movie deserves one star because of the ending. If you are trying throughout the film to explain that she needs to move on, why create a non-realistic ending? Wouldn’t it be much stronger if they eventually stay together, but see the good in life ahead of them? The ending is a soap opera ending and is highly disappointing.

When I write this, the movie has an approval rating of 81% on Rotten Tomatoes. This is shocking. I used to respect their ratings. This movie should have been among the twenty-something percent. It's an ordinary rom-com with a good-looking couple, the hard-to-get girl and the sidekick friend. The “smart, funny” dialogues are the flagships of every superficial rom-com. I have no clue how people approved of this movie. I guess humanity is going one way. Down.

It is excellent until the last 20 minutes (bomb, love speech, pop gender) when it becomes a soap opera. They condensed political views and gender views all into one person. First, he gives a ridiculously “sweet” speech about human love, which, for some reason, was enough for all to vote for him. Then the writer said, “Why keep it with that?”. Let’s add, on top of it, a gender change. Into one person! You put so much effort into making it a quality film and ending it like a B movie? The bomb is where everything started to go downhill. It was like the writer wrote an excellent script, and then a kid took over and wrote the last 20 minutes. A much better ending was for Lawrence to win the pop with all his doubts and leave the “we love all human” speech and the gender change for a different movie. Skip by all means.

The story had potential. Like most American films with big budgets, it focused more on the special effects than the acting or plot. Spoilers: the young girl started abusing the situation way too early in the movie. The older woman started deteriorating way too quickly. They could have communicated with each other by leaving messages, and they didn't. The movie covered the need for a plot with very long scenes in the end. Why does the older woman need to be so disgusting? Can't they show an older woman? Isn't the story about a society that adores the young and neglects the elders? In the movie's second half, the special effects guys take over. Why is she trying to kill the old? She knows they are one. Why the old doesn't terminate her? Did she want to make a point? How did she get to the stage and wasn't stopped before? Because of this pic on her face? Why so much blood in the end? Why the disgusting ending? A different approach could have been that the older find love with the average person while the media abuse the young. Why is everything so exaggerated? Do you want to make drama, comedy, or horror films? What a superficial generation we live in. And Americans are leading the way. The film could have been better if it had a quarter of the budget. In that case, they would put more effort into the plot, not the gore effects.

It's a good movie. I haven't seen the original, but it’s more subtle and profound, making sense as Americans simplify everything to the common denominator. Spoiler: It's annoying that the woman is portrayed as the one who has all the brilliant ideas. They could have given something to the man. But the agenda is: let’s show everyone men are either evil or useless. You must go through this indoctrination if you want to see a movie nowadays. We do know that in real life, it makes zero sense.

Not taking into consideration the cinematography or the acting the movie makes zero sense. SPOILER: 1. If the locals care about the water why not also care about the nature? All their complaints are about the water and not about the nature. 2. If they care about harmony and “balance” why are they allowing (or participating) in hunting which is the total opposite of harmony and balance. 3. How do they let such a young girl go into hunting zone alone? How can he be late knowing how dangerous it is? 4. The story of the evil corporation and the simple people was chewed in movies multiple times. 5. Asking him to be the caretaker is a pathetic solution. 6. They try to be so nice to him and he didn’t even smile once except helping her with her wound. And that’s after he asked him to be his counselor. 7. The ending has nothing to do with the movie and looks like it was written for the purpose of rating and shocking effect (maybe by AI???) All the movie is slow and harmonious and the ending could have been with the same concept. There is ZERO sense to kill him. Even if you take the weak explanation that he is acting like a wounded deer it looks excessive and uncalled for. The guy has nothing to do with his daughter tragedy (unless he blames him for being late to pick up his daughter) No one in real life will ever do something like that unless his place is in an asylum.

It is based on a book and it shows. The ending fits more a book. You expect the plot to thicken at the end after the big scene, but instead it just fades.

I don’t think anyone on this movie knew what story they want to tell? Napoleaon the big military man? Napoleon the one obsessed with his wife? Napoleon the comedian? The movie is scattered all over the place. It looks like they decided to make a big movie with many war scenes and only then thought about the content. More than half the movie are boring scenes with his wife. Allow me to doubt the way you portray the relationship and him saying he is nothing. You have to push progressive agenda to every corner of the universe? It made zero sense. What’s the obsession with sex scenes? One was not enough to lure horny audience. If you try to make it historical movie and in the end actually give us counts of all people died in his wars then why the movie is not around this???? Why make it a romantic comedy? What is with the superficial jokes? Do you see Napoleaon making fun when getting married? I think those who did it have zero understanding in history. They didn’t know how to create interesting movie based solely on his military endeavors and his political fights. They cooked some soup of love scenes with war scenes as a relief. In the end of the movie you get to see his as a weak horny man and not as a military genius that he was. The movie name should have been “Napoleon and Josephine “ or anything else except “Napoleon”. You aimed high by calling out like that and failed miserably. The movie is another sad portrayal of the American society. Childish, superficial, violent, and obsessed with dirty sex. And I forgot the main thing: the French speak English! Seriously???? You couldn’t make an effort? Were you afraid people won’t read subtitles? Is it because you wanted the lead to do the movie and wrote it for him? (By the way he acts it looks like he regretted taking the role. What is it with those strange voices). How do you expect anyone to attach to a movie like this one when the French are speaking the language of their biggest enemy. Wasn’t it awkward for you? After 5 minutes of hearing English you stop thinking you are in French. You feel you are in an expensive movie that had only one thing in mind: making money.

Not sure about all the good reviews. Average movie. The plot is confusing. Not sure they had in mind exactly how they want to end it. I don't like movies written with a sequel in mind. It's like taking your money and giving you half product. I don't think the lead actress is the right choice for the role. She doesn't have the mystery effect in her look. Spoiler: The lead is the one that agreed the boy should do the spirit thing and also the one that selfishly wanted him to stay more than 50 seconds. Afterwards there is no remorse and no one talks to her about it How can she survive the accident? Why did she jump instead of the boy? How can she save him from the spirits if she murdered her dad and no longer can play the nice hero? The positive reviews for this movie are unbelievable.

Looks like the director decided to write his own story and just call it the same name as the book. Not sure Agatha Christie cared so much about racial tensions like the obsessed Americans that must put it in every movie. The director spends more than half the film building for the murder with shots that are more about the visual than the story. After the murder, all the investigation dialogues are so quick that only a genius can follow up. But the story of course was the last concern here. More important the visuals and the beautiful women. The director probably suffering from OCD. Almost In all scenes the picture is symmetrical. The peak is when the detective fix the leg of the dead corpse. Clearly a case of so many films which care more about visuals than the story. American films become almost unbearable to watch and this film is written to lure American audience. Americans are obsessed with 2 things: 1. Sex - they think it’s dirty so they feel the need to show overly sexual interactions that indicate lust and revenge. Even the friends in the beginning dance with lust and not love. 2. Race - their way to clean their souls is by pushing anti racist slogans whenever they can. In how many incidents in life in America you see interracial couple? Almost none. However from their movies and commercials it looks like interracial couples are the majority. Their movies are so much about race that they are willing to destroy everything on their path to show: “we are so nice and inclusive”. The story is not important long as we created one that raise racial tensions and asking for forgiveness for our slavery past. SPOILER If from the beginning it was all planned by the couple then why when she looked at him dancing with the other woman she made a face like she is really jealous. This is purely to mislead the audience that she is not related to the murder and is a manipulation. You should give respect to people that watch it and not put scenes which do not make sense only to confuse them. You already created a very confusing film so don’t make it impossible to figure out the killer. Although it was very obvious. You don’t need a psychology degree to notice the only people he didn’t investigate are the couple.