Reviews

I enjoyed this documentary which was 40 years in the making. I have read pretty much all of Vonnegut's works and obviously this focuses a lot on Slaughterhouse Five but shows everything from his early short stories and earliest novels such as Player Piano onwards. The other review complains about the producer (Weide - the other "half a lifetime" I mention) who is admittedly a bit self-indulgent.

But since his bits are a side-story of how a biographer "cronkler" became a friend of Kurt - it fits in. I look at it as Weide is James Boswell and Kurt is Samuel Johnson (albeit funnier). You get the occasional "Life of Boswell" mixed in. I enjoyed seeing Kurt's family past and present as it helps put things into perspective as his life and career progressed (or sometimes stalled). Also the location shots in Indianapolis and Barnstable, Cape Cod with Kurt or his kids were great. I personally got a kick out of seeing the stone building of his Saab dealership where he wrote "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater." I'd say it's a solid 9/10 for Kurt fans and I think entertaining enough of a show for those who may be unfamiliar with his writing.

This was an excellent episode worthy of any NuWho. So if people are still giving this episode less than say an 8, they obviously just have a grudge against Jodie and/or a female Doctor. This was sort of the "Vincent" of the Chibnall era

OK, here are the major problems with this movie:

1) "pornographic levels" of gratuitous violence, so you are just numb from being inundated with graphic images. My best analogy would be if Mel Gibson filmed the horrible killing in Iraq in minute detail, say from shooting, firing up the cars, dragging bodies through the streets, tie bodies up on bridges while kids dance around. All in Technicolor close-ups and slow-motion. Or it would be like a 3-hour long watching the Hindenburg disaster in 1938 up close & personal.

It basically reduces the Christian religious experience to "wow, Jesus had it nasty, he went through all that for you" whilst ignoring the horrible human (and religious history) all around the world of people dying & killing in horrible & disgusting & nasty (even nastier than what Jesus went through) for "what they believed in." If it were, say, a "slasher film" being released like this (i.e. this level of detail etc) it would be banned worldwide or at least get an "X" rating.

2) The use of the "Satan" character and the "demon-baby" effects are absurd and are at the level of 20-year old horror flicks, in addition to making things absurdly simplistic. Similar to the absurd scene of the "bad unrepentent criminal" on the cross who happens to have ravens pluck out his eyes for his "blasphemy."

3) It just doesn't "scan" --- so we are to believe God loves everything & everyone fully --- but the worst humans in the film aren't as bad as this psychotic evil and petty "God" who causes this mess in the first place! I mean, how can Judas & Pontius Pilate or Caiaphus be really that bad if they are just pawns in the game of an omnipotent God?

It's like calling disgust watching "Faces of Death" as a "religious experience." For all of those raving about how great this is I wish they'd go and watch something that has a "religious experience" and can hopefully make them think such as Ingmar Berman's "Seventh Seal."

As an American living in the UK, I waited until I moved out to see this movie. I actually think it handles the gun hysteria & violence fairly. The media & advertising does give a culture of "consumerism through fear" which I always read about (e.g. "Manufacturing Consent" etc) but never realized until I moved out of the US. And Moore shows the NRA as it is, a group that moved from encouraging guns via sportsmanship (e.g. target shooting contests etc) to a quasi-fascist ultra-right political movement. The zeal with which they have "meetings" (which are Republican political rallies basically) right in the communities after there's a tragic shooting (school shooting) is disgusting.

And Charlton "Moses" Heston's refusal to acknowledge let alone apologize for being insensitive to a community in mourning just reinforces the point. But the movie certainly doesn't blame it on the availability of guns alone. The NRA-Freeper-zeal (probably the ones who voted this movie with the lowest rating possible) is really overdone once again for these types that have a single knee-jerk reaction whenever they feel their "right to bear arms" is threatened. I think it's more based around the culture of fear & death in America, not to mention the hypocrisies of the war machine (i.e. you can have Lockheed making enormous missiles to kill millions in suburban Colorado but the press turns the school shootings into a media circus).

Now wait a minute, I love Tolkien and think the LOTR are great, but I'm shocked that "Two Towers" is now ranked #10 on IMDB with a 9.0 rating and Gangs of New York is way down off the list at a (currently) 7.8 rating. I thought Scorcese did an excellent job and although I am no fan of Leo, he wasn't all that bad. Of course Daniel Day Lewis was great and the supporting actors were excellent.

It was nice for once to see a historical movie of epic proportions that wasn't just a jingoistic postcard and showed America in all the nasty xenophobic and blood & guts glory. And it allows you to draw parallels with current events and our own little xenophobia and political crimes of today, which is what good history should do no matter what Henry Ford said. Perhaps there was a bit too much gratuitous violence but then again can you really sugar-coat a Civil War battle or a lynch mob or just the mob in general? Everybody was a villain in the film, just as often in real life there are no real heros to look up to. Leo's character "Amsterdam" was every bit as bloodthirsty as Lewis' Bill Cutting; if not worse since at least Bill fights in hand-to-hand combat while Leo prefers to sneak up through the ranks and presumably pull an "inside job."

It's just too bad that so many people just looking for the latest "shock & grab" miss some of the bigger themes of the movie; yet they presumably find all sorts of "meaningful" things in "Eight Mile" and LOTR.

This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. The acting is atrocious except perhaps for Billy Bob's son & father. Halle is a joke. It's an embarassment for a real-actor Denzel Washington to get an award the same night in that "history making moment." Basically she screams a lot and shows her boobs. And for a real laugh check her out trying to act like an actual southern struggling black woman in the drunk/first-time-with-Billy-Boy scene. And Billy Bob isn't much better. The sex-scenes are gratuitous and not even hot (even with Halle's body or the hooker). I can only assume Hollywood was on crack for even considering awards for this movie.

I took a long time to rent this movie; and I had always heard it was a classic. The first I knew about it was the beautiful music, theme by Stanley Myers (I had the guitar sheet music). So I was expecting a classic film.

Well it is a good film but I thought there were a lot of holes in it. The "Russian roulette" theme gets pretty old (from POW jungle horror to Saigon gambling room) and unbelievable. Stephen breaks his leg falling from a helicopter; and when you see him back in the USA he's a double amputee refusing to leave the VA hospital? Nick becomes a brainwashed Russian roulette player/gambler exactly how? And he inexplicably survives this dangerous career for years until Michael finally gets there as the US is leaving Saigon in '75?

Considering the pains the director took to show us the background of this Russian-American steeltown PA community I kind of thought it was odd to leave out so much. And the relationship between Meryl Streep/DeNiro/Walken was so facile that the love triangle in "Pearl Harbor" seemed more plausible.

I don't mean to be too critical, it was good entertainment (I give it 8 of 10). But there are better films about Vietnam, such as Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket."

I really liked this film, and I thought Chaplin & Claire Bloom gave great performances. I really wish that Charles could have made more use of Buster Keaton however. It seems like a great opportunity to unite two comic geniuses was missed in their scene together. It was akin to reuniting the Beatles in 1979 just to have them play one short song.

It's a pretty good fun movie especially if you're into that sci-fi comic book stuff. It gets a little "hokey" in spots but nowhere near as far as something like "Starship Troopers" (which may just be trying to be "campy" on purpose). The acting from Ian McKellen & Patrick Stewart is very good; the rest are OK. Special effects & audio (on the DVD at least) make this a good rental or buy to test out your system.

I'm a big fan of the original Peter Cook/Dudley Moore "Bedazzled" but unlike many of the naysayers here I didn't think Ramis' version was that bad. I give it an 8 and the original a 10. It was entertaining; and a pretty good update of the original for modern times. These are really timeless themes anyway; but if this movie got people to check out the original or even other stuff by Cook & Dudley then more power to Ramis, Hurley, and Fraser. I thought Fraser did a pretty good job and Hurley was excellent. I hope she continues to get other comedy roles that let her do more stuff than just look hot and be a sidekick for Austin Powers.

I'm pretty surprised this film gets a 6.8 rating while historical dreck like "Titanic" is at 7.2. "Chaplin" is a very good film. If Attenborough put in the entire Chaplin autobiography; I imagine the nay-sayers here would then complain about the length of the movie. It's a very well balanced film. The only flaw is the continual connections of Chaplin's first love with all of his wives until his final "perfect" wife Oona (as she's played by the same actress as his first love). But Attenborough's direction is excellent, as is Downey's acting.

When I first saw this film I was wondering if it would be a spoof of Chaplin's "Gold Rush." However it's totally different. Fields is excellent and the film has a very good moral! ;-) I love the very sad song he sings which doesn't seem to have a rhyme in it.

One warning however, for DVD fans. The version I have was on a cheap DVD (along with "The Dentist" and "Golf Specialist"). Apparently, the company did a very bad job of porting the film over to digital because the soundtrack of every film is off by about 2 seconds. So the dialogue & sound effects are very mismatched. There is another company that puts out a DVD which is better quality but apparently while the overall quality is better, the version of "The Dentist" is censored & has cheezy music added in.

I really wanted to appreciate this film as a classic but it came off a bit goofy in my opinion. I give it an 8 out of 10; good solid entertainment but not in the legendary, classic status you would think from it's IMDB rank of being the top #153 of all time.

I could overlook the obvious jingoism and "Germans bad, Americans good" since it's a product of its times, McCarthyism, and the Cold War. But overall, as a war movie, I thought it was an insult to people in real prison camps! I guess it's hard to take something too seriously which turned into "Hogan's Heroes." Don't get me wrong, there are funny bits and the "whodunit" story interwoven with the comic stuff is pretty good. I especially liked the proud capitalist wanna-be-rich-guy meeting up with the proud capitalist already-rich-guy (enemies at first, partners at the end). Basically this movie is a propaganda piece, although by the time it was made the war was long over, and the only war was "cold" with the Russians. So it was a little odd that the Russians were OK in the film but the Germans were still "dumb but not stupid" (Einstein, Bohr, et al would be glad to know that ;-).

But the idea that Russian woman prisoners had nothing to do but giggle for strapping American lads to try and ogle them, or "give a piece" for some silk stockings was a bit tough. And the obvious buffoonery of the German soldiers was a bit silly although you can see the segue into the "Hogan's Heroes" TV show. I guess the only next step would be the "Hoffman's Heroes" parody that Mad Magazine did years ago (concentration camp humor).

So enjoy it for what it is, but I don't quite see how this is such a classic in the war film canon. I prefer "Duck Soup" by the Marx Brothers for comedy and a statement of the inanities of war.

The thing that surprises me the most about this great film is that it's not even in IMDB's top 200 and the fact that so many close-minded people here can't appreciate it. It's also funny seeing people "second guess" Pu Yi as if a titular Chinese or Manchurian emperor (no pun intended) had some superhero powers to battle the superpowers. I think IMDB viewers and backseat monarchs have been watching too many unrealistic action movies. When dreck like Bill Murray films ("Groundhog Day"?) are ranked in the top 250 yet "The Last Emperor" isn't then there's something really wrong with people. Then again, they voted for George "Shrub" Bush I guess...

I thought this was a fun movie (a solid 8 of 10) but I didn't get the feeling that it was a grand epic Western as some people say. The Burt Bacharach music was nice but a little bit corny in the context of this movie. The interlude with the old-style, sepia-toned photographs of their adventures in New York (while waiting for the ship to Bolivia) was well done. Redford & Newman did a great job with their characters but I didn't really care for anybody else in the movie and it was pretty much just their show.

This is a pretty good documentary & compilation of the best chases of the silent movie era. It's good to get or rent if you can't get all the individual movies, esp The General by Buster Keaton. The narration is light and you get to see a lot of footage unlike many documentaries that are heavy on narration with just a small clip of the scene (or audio). The soundtrack is great, with the music by composer and harmonica virtuoso Larry Adler. There are many added sound effects (horse hoofbeats, train sounds, gunshots, etc) that weren't there in the original viewings of these movies of course but add to the footage (unless you're a purist).

This is a great movie and an excellent example of the masterful Hitchcock touch. Some of the cut scenes, the photography are really landmarks in film. My favorite is when Scottie is in the hotel room with the girl embracing, the camera moves around them; the livery stable scene is in the background, then we're back to the hotel room. I'm not so sure it's worthy of being #29 at IMDB. But it is pretty darn good how the writers & Hitchcock were able to blend the supernatural element (through the story line as well as the cinematography) with the logical explanation at the end (sort of an uber-Scooby Doo episode ;-).

I give it a 9 out of 10, just losing a point because I wasn't convinced by what seemed to be the rushed love interest with Scottie & Madeleine at first. Would such a stand-up guy like Scottie be making out with his old college pal's wife after what seemed like two days of tailing here? And it seemed a bit rushed or forced in the followup pursuit of Judy. I suppose this rushed love interest was a necessary evil as the film would be 4 hours long if it developed normally? And poor Midge seemed to be a pretty useless character. But these are minor gripes overshadowed by the otherwise great story, photography, & direction by Hitchcock.

I don't know if it's just an IMDB thing or what, put people seem to be way off base in their criticism of "The Misfits." It wasn't a movie of macho "Marlboro Man" stereotypes or Las Vegas losers. They're not "worthless, morally unredeemable humans" as one "critic" here put it. They're just you're basic everyday "Everyman" human -- confused, looking for some cure-all solution to their problems, an answer to questions, or just someone to care. Miller got it right from the plethora of dysfunctional families. It's amazing people crow over B-rated comedy like "Some Like It Hot" (making it #1 at AFI for comedy and #50 overall at IMDB) yet flame a John Huston film & Arthur Miller screenplay!

"The Misfits" is as topical today as it ever was (like any good work of art), and not just for the cause of animal rights or LV wild mustangs. When Rosalind/Marylin yells at Gable/Clift/Wallach as being killers & dead men it's even more poignant these days when we have "compassionate conservatism" which yields more people dying under death penalties than ever. Not to mention a military build-up and "Star Wars" plan to protect us from whom we proclaim to be our latest enemies. Now that's the real all-American macho posturing, not "The Misfits" for crying out loud! What's really the difference between chopping up wild horses for dogfood or chopping up people in a war "cause" that helps oil companies & defense contractors the most?

It's a funny movie but I'm a little amazed that it appears as the #1 comedy movie of all time with the AFI, and even at IMDB it's #50 (ahead of Chaplin & Marx Bros classics among others). Yet compare the size of the "memorable quotes" page from "Duck Soup" to "Some Like It Hot." The characters & love interests were all a bit shallow, and it wasn't a revolutionary film or anything like Chaplin & Marx Bros. So I don't really understand what makes it a top-rated movie. Is it a revolutionary film just because it had guys in drag in 1950's "square" America?

On the other hand, to answer another critic here, it's silly to compare a screen legend like Marylin Monroe to a 90's plastic-surgery legend and non-actress like Pamela Lee Anderson etc. They had actresses back then, not aerobicized bimbos who's best performances were with Tommy Lee on Internet-downloaded movie clips. "Some Like It Hot" is better than most dreck put out nowadays but I can't really see giving it higher than an 8 of 10, 3 of 4 stars, B grade, etc.

I guess "All About Eve" is one of those performances where everything just "clicked" and worked like magic. Bette Davis was frighteningly good. I think it's too cliche or facile to say "she is Margo Channing." I think Ms. Davis was too good of an actress (better than Margo would have been in the real world); and could just put on and take off a character like a nice sable coat. The ladies in the movie were the real standouts --from Marylin Monroe's cute few minutes on-screen, through Thelma Ritter's tough ex-vaudevillian "Birdie." And of course in addition to Bette Davis' performance there's Anne Baxter's evilly plotting "Eve," and Celeste Holm as the misled playwright's wife "Karen." But the writing, directing, and photography in the movie are top-notch and it doesn't get much better than this. 10/10

What I find amazing is that even in the year 2001 people are so brain-washed by our corporate media that they can complain about Chaplin's bashing the McArthy era. This embarassing chapter in America's history (up there with slavery, the "Jim Crow" south, and Japanese internment camps of WW2) was responsible for thousands of Hollywood job losses, the imprisonment of the great writer Ring Lardner, the expatriation of Chaplin, Paul Robeson, et al.

And all of this for a ridiculous "witch hunt" by some sanctimonious & hypocritical power-hungry politicians; with trumped up hearings gathered together faster than you can say "Monica." Well eventually it ended up backfiring on the anti-commie crowd of course, although I guess sure helped Ronald Reagan to be president of the Screen Actors Guild, then CA, and the White House weren't far behind (easy when you sell out enough I guess).

But gee, since Chaplin was up against these zealots (who are the real "anti-American" ones if people actually knew their history), I suppose we should be able to forgive him for not being so subtle in "A King in New York!"

It's tough discovering Charlie Chaplin films like "The Great Dictator" and even "Modern Times." They put you through such a range of emotions from comedy through tragedy in one show that you feel schizophrenic. I guess that's more power to the artistry of Chaplin. "The Great Dictator" is obvious in it's sadness since it was done in 1940, and the movie finishes with such hope but looking back from our "modern times" we all know that there were five more miserable years of Nazi facism, concentration camps, and misery.

This is obviously a great propaganda piece, but there's much more to it than something like Olivier's jingoistic "Henry V" (another excellent film of the period). What I find refershing is how perceptive Chaplin is in his speech at the end to unite all religions and races etc. Sadly enough it sounds dated to our "modern" ears, sort of like John Lennon's "All You Need Is Love" must sound in this era of right-wing talk-radio pundits pushing "compassionate conservatism."

PS -- There's so much in this film that's eternal it's awkward reading some of the misinformation in the reviews, and people whining about the costumes or whatever. For instance, in the review from Aug 12, 2000 that they are using as the only review on the front page of IMDB. It wasn't the Hynkel/Dictator who was "endearing" in the gun & upside-down aeroplanes. I thought it was obvious that was the barber, who after his antics as a soldier crashed with Schultz and had amnesia.

There are some good analyses of this classic film, so I'll just take on my observations after watching it for the first time here in 2001, 65 years after it was made. I have been rediscovering the classic movies of the past, esp the comedies such as the Marx Bros. This is the first Chaplin I have seen outside of a few short pieces when I was a kid.

What struck me is how applicable this movie is to the society of our times. I guess this transcendancy over time period is a sign of any good art. As I watched "Modern Times" I couldn't help but think that living in 2001 seems to actual be old-fashioned if you reflect on the dittohead pundits that rule the airwaves, mega-corporate owned & controlled media, politicians that fire up the masses over religion, Iraqi radar, and the usual sanctimonious hypocrisy to make them forget about how they work harder & longer for less, or other important problems.

Heck, insinuating healthcare for the masses in our modern times gets one labeled a "commie pinko" by Rush Limbaugh et al. So can you imagine the reaction in modern times of a group of workers peacefully walking down the street with a guy waving a red flag? They'd have the riot cops out spraying Mace & pepper gas before you can hum a few bars from "Smile." Can you imagine a film with leftist, socialist sympathies being released in these modern times? In makes you wonder which times seem more modern from a human perspective, the 1936 of this film or the 2001 of corporate America?