Mind Urownbizness (Mr Sidebottom)

Whispering, mumbling, cymbal crashes, cats that don't miaow...I mean...what's the point of this? Very poor premise for the expenditure which you may have better spent on helping people in need. If you want a real pizza, go to Italy. It's not a metaphor for the American sense of security. It just decent grub, in Italy. Key phrase, "Stop the boat", which I can only imagine resonates negatively with migrants fleeing for good reason and who are exploited by criminal gangs and persecuted by racist policy. But above all, the use of Nina Simone to prop up this useless film is a gross insult to her. Despicable! I despise you for that.

How infuriating to have an ethereal mediocre voice narrating for the audience to 'narratesplain' the story and overcook for us the inner existential ennui of the affluent. I empathise with emotional collapse in relationships within a framework of modernist alienation. But for pete's sake stop talking. " He was learning to set boundaries" (yes, the audience knows that was the essential purpose of the previous scene!) Aggghhhhh! Please stop talking. Bergman's 'Scenes from a marriage' and its adaptation is streets ahead of this stuff. Why are the affluent such a messed up bunch?

If this is taken as a meaningful behavioural study, the human race is doomed. If it's taken as meaningful entertainment, entertainment is doomed. If it's taken as neither, then meaning is doomed. At the same time, it's obviously edited so that people appear vulnerable and endearing, a bit like the emotionally addictive format of X-Factor etc. Surely our audiences are too sophisticated to engage with the BIG BROTHER EDITING SUITE commands which created this monstrosity. Finally, the notion that any of these participants are 'in poverty' is seriously questionable; abandoning one's moral compass for money is then questionable. Go and look at real poverty, learn, and be humbled. Really grim TV.

Visually stunning, yet otherwise a bit annoying. Lots of mumbled dialogue which one suspects is actually mostly superfluous in any case. Isn't this primarily a typical heroic narrative overburdened with notions of myth and predestination for 'high'born' chosen chumps. Very few likeable characters. The grotesqueries are the most appealing aspect, especially the emperor.

If you are a human, this movie will turn you inside out. With incredible subtlety and nuance it carefully details a violation of innocence in the most insidious manner thinkable, exploring the realities of interpersonal control and exploitation. Superb.

Does anybody really care what anyone else thinks? I'm not sure that Google reviews serve the process of debate and critical appraisal of anything in a way that contributes to a sense of wider understanding. More likely, they probably moredirectly assist in the process of creating improved algorithmic data about those who read and write them. In any case... It seems to me that the book(s), which the series is 'based upon', has four major, core qualities: 1 A propensity for excellent dialogue. In fact, most of the book(s) is based on these excellent exchanges. 2 The presentation of the idea of circular processes of establishment of empire, growth of empire, stagnation through over expansion and eventual disintegration; not an uncommonly observed historical assumption. 3 The proposal that there can be objective oversight via science (maths, and in this case 'psychohistory') which is predictive if applied to mass human behaviour; read 'dataism' and algorithms. This objective oversight is contrasted with myth and ritual throughout, myth which is nevertheless utilised to coax the 'less informed' into following a cohesive historical plan aimed at restoring order; read pacification to intended order via religion. (Those who put out the peoples eyes condemn them of their blindness.) 4 Those with 'vision' - the overseers - are elite technocrats who seem to have, somewhat benevolently, a concern with establishing and maintaining order and diminishing the effects of the inevitable cyclical disorder apparent in historical patterns of expansion and collapse; read heroic narrative. In this regard, in what way does the current TV series relate to the core features of the original text listed here? In my view, there is very little relationship and thus the best features of the original text seem to be missed or lost amongst a litany of woeful melodramatic and romantic narrative asides. What then is the point of calling the TV series 'Foundation', when it should, more realistically, be called ' A TV series based on the book Foundation by Isaac Azimov, but having very little actual relationship to the book apart from the barest narrative thread and the name'. But as I said, who cares!

A over-sentimental vanity piece full of tropes.

So far so bad. A montage of cliche, projected bleeding heart liberal cutout characters; an excruciating attempt to be meaningfully humanist.

Thank you Steve McQueen for this gift. Truly remarkable. Perfect. Superb. We need to do more to wrestle the narrative away from the ignorant and abusive forces currently dominating our arts, culture and social media.

First watch is 5 stars from me. I will watch this again, which is more of a complement and a testament to the finesse and nuance in the characters and narrative structure. Besides that, and no one seems to be mentioning this, religious ignorance and devotion are central to the motivation of most central characters. I found that aspect of the movie fascinating.