The Thin Blue Line

I’ve seen this wonderful semi-documentary about four times. From thehypnotic Philip Glass score to the stylized reenactment of the crime to thetaped possible murder confession, "The Thin Blue Line" is grippingthroughout. How often can one say that about a documentary? One thing,though: each time I’ve seen the movie I’ve been slightly more convincedthat Adams was there when his acquaintance (the driver of the car he wasin)shot the Dallas police officer. In other words, it isn’t necessarily truethat the police investigators got it entirely wrong. What counts, ofcourse, in our legal system is whether Adams got a fair trial, and themovieshows that it’s almost certain he did not. Highly recommended!

I watch this film over and over for its beautiful visual style, perfectmusical score by Philip Glass, and its unbelievable emotional power.ErrolMorris is without doubt my favorite film maker in any genre- Check out hisother films, you will not be disappointed.

The Thin Blue Line was my first taste of an Errol Morris picture. I sawthisin my Film as Literature class. At first I didn’t want to see this movie atall. I though it would be like every other documentary where it has thenarrator speaking, while there is old footage being ran, and pictures ofthecrime or whatever is being shown. Oh boy how wrong I was. From the firstsecond you hear the music running and you see the captions An Errol MorrisFilm, you immediately get the sense that you are in for something good. Howright I was in this aspect.

Never before have I ever seen such a stylist documentary. The film runs tothe repetitive but moody music of Philip Glass. Along with thereenactments,the movie has an extremely surreal experience to it. Unlike 99% ofdocumentaries, Errol Morris eludes to have narration, instead he lets thepeople say what’s one their minds. In my opinion this is more effectivebecause you get to hear the truth and not assumptions by the narratortryingto impose excessive remarks. I mentioned reenactments, let me explain howthey work in Errol Morris movies. According to what the people on cameramight be saying, Errol Morris tries to recreate those situations. This addsa very strange feel to the documentary experience. Even though you knowthese reenactments never occurred as they are shown, it helps youunderstandwhat the people are talking about. Furthermore it adds to the whole logicofseeing a movie, it makes it more artistic and more film-like. Anotherinteresting feature Errol Morris uses is footage from movies, or cartoons.Ihave never seen these elements in a documentary. I was astonished by what Isaw in this documentary. At every single second of the film, it keeps yourattention intact. Careful if you blink, other wise you will miss somethinggreat. I liked this film so much I ended up renting every singledocumentarydirected by Errol Morris.

On a final note regarding Errol Morris, every single thing he does is good.I’m just happy to have the privilege to be living at this time to witnesssuch great films from him.

Errol Morris has constructed a film here that defies all traditionalaesthetics once held dear to documentaries. Morris is a filmmaker who issaid to have despised all verite and as a result has abandoned allcharacteristics attributed to that style. Specifically, there is no feel ofspontaneity or immediacy in his films, absolutely no hand-held shots, andnopresenting of extra information. You can tell there is not a shooting ratioof 150-200:1 as with say a typical Frederick (High School) Wiseman film. Itis precisely this rejection which makes The Thin Blue Line socompelling.

The Thin Blue Line is a documentary about the wrongful arrest andsubsequentconviction of a man whom hitched a ride with the wrong man at the wrongtime. His story is told through a series of interviews, including one fromthe jailed man himself, inter-cut throughout various reenactments of thedisputed crime. Morris presents us with a very dark film filled with highcontrast lighting and cool blues which give all the subjects a pale look.Itis, however, with the reenactments that this documentary stands out.Morris’s use of slow-motion photography, close ups, and editing focusesyourattention on specific aspects of the crime scene as well as the aestheticvalue of these traditionally narrative tools.

This film’s most impressive aspect is the haunting score by Phillip Glass,which immediately encapsulates you from the first second we are introducedto Dallas, Texas. The score tends to play out during reenactments andthrough crucial aspects of the interviews which narrow our attention to themessage of the film. This score can put you into a kind of trance whichmakes you completely open to manipulation.

It is this manipulation however which reminds you of the limitations of thenarrative documentary. We are absolutely told what to think about thepeople(police and witnesses) whom do not support the claims of the jailed man.Morris intended to make a film about the wrongful conviction of this manandany of the interviewees who got in the way of that were either trivializedor their stories were manipulated as to only present arguments of theinnocence of this man. But who cares, of course we are being manipulated bythe narrative structure, it is still damned compelling.

Errol Morris does a magnificent job in what I believe is his best documentary. Wonderfully shot and conceptualized, this is more like the greatest Unsolved Mysteries episode ever. Even though the film was virtually all interviews, it really brings out the quirks and the trivial natural of eyewitness reports. Its also a moment frozen in time, a time when racism still shaped the judicial system and the good old boy system extended further than politics. The score by Phillip Glass was also amazing. There are so many little indicators of the individual’s personalities within the film, sometimes it appears comical or scary. Quite an achievement for a film which is so confined and claustrophobic.

We watch a lot of American Justice and their ilk in this house. Everyepisode Bill Kurtis or whoever leads us through the case to hisexpected result. Then we saw this on IFC one evening. The Lack ofnarration, the compelling music, the repetitive recreations of thescene and most of all, the faces and voices: Adams’ ‘plain Jane’attorney, her colleague who handled Adams’ appeal, the small town cop,the judge comparing his grade in state versus Federal SupremeCourt…all of these people speaking out to us, building or tearingdown a case that grows in our minds, especially when the real killerbegins to talk. A powerful experience not to be missed.

I don’t heap the above praise lightly, but Errol Morris’s Thin Blue Linedeserves every grain of it. If you have yet to see this film because youthink that you have an aversion to documentaries then you best reconsider,because this spellbinding feature is filmmaking at its best. Eschewingtraditional techniques, Morris creates a mesmerizing mystery that unravelslike a tightly-wound watch spring. The story unfolds with interviews, vividrecreations, chilling music, and the results are hypnotic.

Unfortunately this film is out of print on VHS and Laserdisc, and is notyetavailable on DVD. Finding copies to rent might be difficult, but if youhaveyet to see this modern masterpiece then do yourself a favor and make theextra effort to get your hands on a copy.

I remember seeing this when it was first released and walking outthankinggod I was a free man and not caught in the wheels of justice. How couldaninnocent man be sitting in jail while I walked to my car to head home tosleep? Maybe some of that power and emotion is diluted now, or maybeit’seven stronger since this film resulted in the release of Randal Adams,butas a documentary is should be required viewing for all film students andsocial studies classes.

One more footnote - shame on
the Academy Awards for not even nominatingthisfor best documentary.

This film caused a man who was formerly on death row and whose sentencewascommuted to life imprisonment to be pardoned by the Governor of Texas.It’sa documentary of just how badly justice can miscarry.

Relentlessly drawing you to a conclusion with circumstantial evidence, bysystematically discrediting questionable witnesses and by showing therewasa means and a desire to prosecute the wrong man and why - you aregraduallyled to believe the unthinkable - that the DA purposely convicted thewrongman with the aid of corrupt police officers and a sympathetic judge tosatisfy the need for revenge for a murdered police officer.

This film proves that it’s indeed possible for a completely innocent mantoend up on death row in this country simply because it’s politicallyexpedient. This is a film that will give you a good reason to questionthedeath penalty because it demonstrates that it could have just as easilybeenyou that was convicted of a crime you didn’t commit.

Errol Morris uncovers evidence systematically and visually demonstratesallthe possibilities to you the viewer who are substituted as the juror.Somemay find this movie ponderous and slow but the impact it had on me by thefinal evidence presented will live with me forever. This movie is anabsolute gem, and it’s too bad it’s becoming forgotten because it’s oneofthe most important films to have ever been made. I was lucky enough tobeshown this film during an English class in college, everybody should besolucky.

If you can only see one movie in your life, this is the one it shouldbe. "The Thin Blue Line" will give you a new perspective on reality,truth and subjectivity. Although widely acclaimed, this movie never gotanywhere near the kudos it deserved; even the music is wonderful. Theicing on the cake is that the best part of the movie occurs years afterit opened - but I dare not say more about that. Things start off in arather confusing, even irritating, manner, but one quickly adjusts tothe technique, which is vaguely similar to, but less extreme than, thatused in the more recent film "Memento." Thus there’s a lot ofrepetition but none of that was bothersome to me once the story waswell underway, and eventually you just don’t notice it. I was rivetedto the screen right until the end.

read comments (0)

The Unbearable Lightness of Being

The title of the novel has a great impact to the reader. The movie iswell played out. "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" is one of MilanKundera's finest novels. The characters Tomas(Daniel Day-Lewis),Sabina(Lena Olin),and Tereza(Juliette Binoche) are the most notable inthe book. These stars play it out very well. Tomas is a womanizingphysician, his wife Sabin is no unhappy wife herself. These two playsex games with whoever they encounter. Sabina wears this old derbywhich I think is a turn on, and a teaser. When she wore that lingeriealong with the hat, it brings the character truly to life. So whenTereza enters the picture, the chemistry between the two is non-stop.The examination scene between the two is what I liked. The question is,"Who came on to who?" Despite the political upbringing in Europe,Sabina did find a better life in the USA. The movie isself-explanatory, but the book is the real deal, either way you see it,they're both good! 5 stars!

philip kaufman did quite well indeed, what else could we expect as there arenames like daniel day-lewis involved. although the book is far better thanthe film, "the unbearable lightness of being" is - compared to otherliterature films - more than just ok.

Life is a collection of experiences, unique to each individual. This filmlets us see how its characters experience events in their lives, at timesvery intimate events. What is boring to some is beautiful characterdevelopment to others. Erotic, yes. Boring, no. A great film.

This film has so many great qualities it’s hard to believethatanyone who would want to see it could walk away disappointed. I cancertainly appreciate that fans of the novel may be let down because the filmis quite different than the novel. However, allof the meaning is there. Seldomly does a film ever fulfilltheintentions of the book it is based on. But with this film, it goes beyondthe book’s intention by throwing in a lighter context. The book isexcellent, and I did read it before seeing the film. There are so manyqualities in the book I would have hated to see attempted on screen. Thereis so much of what’sexplained in the book that can be easily implied in thefilm.I’m not saying you have to be familiar with the book to understand themovie. That is what is so amazing about the screen adaption. The charactersare so vivid thanks to theincredible performances by the entire cast. If anything, it’s like watchinga novel come to life. The cinematography is almost half the reason why thisfilm is so bold, thanks to Nykvist. As with any great film, the musicalselections were all carefully picked and appropriate. This is quite anunderrated gem.

Based on Milan Kundera’s highly rated novel, this movie achieves a levelofhonest cinematic drama rarely seen. With as many political comments asexamples of human behaviour, this movie effectively conveys the passion ofMilan Kundera. It is not however for anyone looking for a movie with cheapthrills. The whole movie revolves around the lives of the three maincharacters. Juliette Binoche’s brilliant portrayal of a childlike naivewaitress shows that she already had the makings of an Oscar winner earlyon.The same can be said of Daniel Day Lewis. Phillip Kaufman’s easyunderstateddirection draws attention and is brilliantly contrasted with authenticscenes of the invasion of Prague with the actors in the background makingthe whole "feel" very realistic and almost documentary-like. I wouldrecommend this masterpiece to anyone looking for more than just easywatching film. The more you see this film, the more you can take from it.Abrilliant study in behaviour.

First of all, I cannot believe the primary user review for this film isLeoWhatshisnam. I may have had a similar opinion of thefilm when I was a child of 15 - unware of love and loss. But this film isabeautiful companion to ‘Henry and June’. (which most of my friends yawnedthrough as well, not being seasoned men of love, lust and women ingeneral.)Sure, you can take your female companions to this film and they will enjoythe depth of emotion involved (as well as being a great literarytranslation), but if you’re a man who loves football and potatoe chips,takeyour significant other to ‘The Waterboy’ instead.

They did it! They brought Kundera’s tenderness and passion to its mostsensual heights with the personification of this love triangle by absolutelynatural lovers. Only 170 minutes, but you’ll remember them forever. How manymovies have you seen as a teenager that will still make you laugh, and cry,and scream for love 12 years later?

This movie is absolutely stunning! Normally movies don’t live up to thequality of the books. This movie is based on the book of the same title byMilan Kundera (an excellent book) and does more than translate it intofilm.The characters are wonderfully portrayed, their personal philosophiescominginto conflict in an incredibly sensitive and tragic way. This is an epicfilm set against the turbulent background of the Prague Spring of 1968whenRussian tanks invaded Prague. There is nothing I didn’t like about thisfilmand along with The Double Life of Veronique it is perhaps my favoritefilm.True quality.

I’m really surprised by the previous viewer’s comments.Perhaps one’s take on this movie depends on whether or not one has readthe book. I happened to have read it before watching the movie, and as aresult I love the movie. Each word and gesture evokes Kundera and it isworth seeing the movie just to remind one of the book.I can see how someone who hasn’t read the book might not like the moviesomuch. Almost all of the philosophical depth of the book is lost here.Nonetheless, the movie is visually beautiful, the characters arememorable,and the dialogue is great.The pig, Mefisto, is a great pig.One of my favorite movies. Definitely worth seeing.

I first saw this beautiful movie when it first came out in 1988. I was 18atthe time, and I remember thinking that I would probably never see a moviethat captivated me so, and I was right. The Unbearable Lightness of Beingisa masterpiece-combining politics, history, sex, love and mortality in anuncommonly brilliant piece of filmmaking. The screenplay is superblywrittenand remains true to the beauty and tragedy of Kundera’s novel.

I have to agree with the previous reviewer who called this film "sublime".Idefy anyone who sees this film not to be moved by it in some way, and howmany movies have the power to do that, especially thesedays?

In addition, the performances by all Day-Lewis, Binoche, and Olin aremasterful. I believe that it may be one of Daniel Day-Lewis’s bestperformances.

read comments (0)

Tucker: The Man and His Dream

The story of Preston Tucker, failed car manufacturer, as told inFrancis Coppola’s biopic, has a feel of a fable such as David Mamet’s’The Water Engine’, an archetypal story of the little man with a dream,crushed by the system. It’s therefore surprising to learn that, inessence, the story is true, and Jeff Bridges’ portrayal of Tucker as acharacter of almost wild enthusiasm is also close to the mark. But evenif it’s it true, it still doesn’t convince. Bridges plays Tucker as aman of nothing but enthusiasm, and it’s hard to believe that anyonecould have taken such a person seriously; or indeed, that such a personcould ever have run a large business successfully, however great hisjudgement and ambition. He’s also just too bouncy for us to really feelhis pain as life turns against him, and there’s an annoying depictionof his perfect family to boot in the classic Hollywoood manner. Aboveall else the film is a reassertion of the values of the American dream,and while it’s amusing to see how Tucker assembled his first car in themanner of a competitor on ‘Scrapheap Challenge’, the point is that in99 out of 100 cases, a dreamer wouldn’t make it nearly as far asTucker; in the real world, dreaming alone is rarely enough. Withoutthis context, the film loses it’s point and bite: but it’s nice to see50 reconstructions of Tucker’s futuristic creation, circling the blockat the end at the film.

I’m not sure this has a true ’spoiler’ in it, but I put the check markin "just in case." I really wanted to like this movie because I love"period" flicks based on fact, I love older cars, and I love JeffBridges. Early on I wasn’t sure about it, however. Jeff Bridges’eternal smile and optimism was starting to grate on me, but I stuckwith it. From what I can tell, the movie was amazingly accurate. Thisis a film for someone who might be interested not only in old cars withfuturistic ideas, but also the inner workings of big business and thegovernment of the 1940’s. This is a David vs Goliath film without atrue fairy tale ending.

Though it bothers some people, I think the best part of this movie is howitoccasionally looks like a stage play. Whenever two people are talking onthephone, for example, they are rather obviously standing right next to eachother with a wall in between them. Also, the colors have a slightlywashedout look that makes the movie look much older than it reallyis.

Coppola achieves a fascinating fusion of vintage Capra and 80’sgrandstanding with this one - most of the time it works neither as realismnor as fantasy. The cinematography, production design and Coppola’s cameratricks are gorgeous, but the parallels to Coppola’s own life are obvious,and the lack of shading and detail makes them irrelevant and self-consciousin the worst way. His refusal to give Preston Tucker any semblance of aninner life or to treat the marginal characters as more than wallpaper dropsthe viewer in limbo - it’s a drama/comedy about the strength andperseverance of character, with a conspicuous lack of character. Bridges,Allen and Elias Koteas have some nice moments, but the performances thatstick in the mind are the uncredited Lloyd Bridges as Senator Ferguson andespecially Dean Stockwell as Howard Hughes. To say the least, Coppola isvery adept in creating a framework for Stockwell’s cameo. It’s as if hiswords pass directly into myth, and each second is perfection.

OK, I’ll admit it…even though the man is a good 30 years older than me, Ihave a mad crush on Jeff Bridges! But even more than that, the man can act,and after 40+ years in the movie business, he’s doing something right."Tucker…" shows the story of someone who has a dream of making life betterin some small way, appeals to the love of cars (the vintage ones used inthis movie are striking!), and how you can’t see a dream come to fruitionwithout the ones who love you and believe in you (Joan Allen is great asTucker’s wife, and Christian Slater as the son looks like he could really beJeff Bridges’ son!). It is about the love and support of family in goodtimes and bad as much as it is about building the perfect car. But whathappens when your dream ultimately doesn’t come true? When the people youtrust turn against you? These issues are fleshed out beautifully and JeffBridges is perfect across the board as Preston Tucker. A great family filmas well.

Tucker: The Man and His Dreams is a movie concerning a car designerduringthe 1940s. Internal struggles within the company and government agenciesfunded by the major three major automobile makers destroy his dream. Thefilm depicts the ability of bureaucracies within our country to conquertheimaginative ideas of the working people. It is an interesting movie aboutaman whose dreams were incredible for the times. This movie is the firsttimeJoan Allen, Jeff Bridges, and Christian Slater collaborated to make afilm.The Contender is a better film and possesses higher quality performancesfrom all three actors, but Tucker is worth watching.

If I were to make a film about the power of dreams, I doubt I wouldstart with a real-life story of a dreamer who ultimately failed becausehe had nothing BUT dreams. But as a film, Tucker: The Man and His Dreamworks very well. It works neither because of nor in spite of whomPreston Tucker really was, but because he has been remade in the filmto represent something larger–the postwar optimism that buoyed thenation for nearly two decades after the end of WWII. Lucas and Coppolawere smart enough to realize that the factual story would resonatepoorly with a late-20th-century audience if presented in a documentarystyle. So they skillfully crafted a tale that effectively communicatesthe real story, but does so behind the veil of fable.

How this was done is a triumph of film-making technique. Rather thanmonkey around too much with the relevant (and ultimately disheartening)facts of the Tucker Motor Company’s short existence, Lucas and Coppolatook all the incidentals of the film—the characters, the subplots, thesets, the costumes—and skewed, streamlined, generalized and idealizedthem to the point of subtly but clearly communicating the filmmakers’intent that this be viewed as a morality play, not an historicalaccount.

The resulting film is visually and aurally gorgeous. The lush sets,rich, saturated colors and dramatic cinematography would border onhackneyed and cliché if they depicted any other era, but here theylovingly reinterpret the feel of ’40s Hollywood dramas, meshing thefilm’s message perfectly with the historical setting. A fantastic scoreby former-punk-rocker-turned-orchestral-arranger Joe Jackson artfullygives ’40’s swing a punchy, forceful modern makeover that helps keepthe whole retro package accessible and enjoyable for modern viewers.

Looking back, it may seem odd that unbridled enthusiasm such asTucker’s was so pervasive as the nation reeled from the horriblereality of World War II and came to grips with its cold war legacy.Perhaps America HAD to be optimistic; the fragile ability to hope anddream was indispensable therapy. Like Tucker’s, everyone else’s dreamsof a forever-improving world would crash by the end of thedisillusioned, turbulent ’60s. Tucker: The Man and His Dream is a veryagreeable way to forget the past we KNOW and discover a more visceralhistory we can FEEL.

Why was Lloyd Bridges not credited for his part as "Senator HomerFerguson"? He's Jeff Bridges' father and played a very crucial role tothe plot of this film and the driving force behind Tucker's failure.The cinematography of this film was appropriately done in widescreen,in order to depict the immensity of Tucker's dream. Lloyd Bridges'portrayal of Senator Ferguson, was so well done that I really resentedhis position of power to be able to destroy this innovative automobile.

I actually remember this car when my father brought h
ome a brochure. Iused to watch "Sea Hunt" every week and I feel Lloyd Bridges deservesto be credited in every movie that he has appeared in.

Teddy

"Tucker, the Man and His Dream" offers the quintessential Jeff Bridgesperformance. While not as tricky as his skillful turn in "Starman," therole of Preston Tucker provided Bridges with a chance to use his innateoptimism and unflagging energy to create an indelible character.Although nominated four times for an Oscar, Bridges was overlooked forthis, arguably his finest performance. Perhaps the idealistic upbeatTucker was too close to the real Bridges, and Academy members failed tonotice that he was acting out the role of his career. The real PrestonTucker was a man of ideas that outpaced his time, which was thepost-World War II era. Eager to produce a car that would embody allmanner of advanced technology and safety measures from a rear engine toseat belts, Tucker's mind and spirit far outpaced the abilities of hisengineers and backers to keep up with him. Unfortunately, he fell afoulof Detroit's Big Three automakers. The automotive giants feltthreatened by the innovations that Tucker proposed and feared that theincreased costs required to implement the new features would cut intoprofits. Fortunately, 46 of the Tucker automobiles that were producedare still road worthy and highly collectible.

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, who is reportedly the owner of aTucker or two, the film boasts a cast of professionals that appear torevel in their roles. Martin Landau as the financier with a criminalrecord, Joan Allen as the epitome of a supportive early 1950's wife,Christian Slater as the devoted son, and a crew of mechanics thatincludes Frederic Forrest, Mako, and Elias Koteas all provide excellentsupport to Bridges's central starring role. Jeff's father, LloydBridges, shows up in the small, but tasty role of a corrupt senator.The film begins as a glossy promotional documentary for Tucker, a la"Citizen Kane," and the concept recurs throughout. Joe Jackson's musicemphasizes the upbeat gung ho proceedings even in the face of adversityand captures the era effectively. Vittorio Storaro's superbcinematography and Dean and Alex Tavoularis's period art direction areas slick and shiny as the Tucker automobiles that come off the assemblyline.

While not in the same league as Coppola's "Godfather" films or"Apocalypse Now," the film is an obvious labor of love. Like Scorsese,Hitchcock, and Ford, Coppola's second-tier works are still head andshoulders above the films of less talented directors. Engaging frombeginning to end, the story of Preston Tucker could only have takenplace in America, where an idealistic man with a dream can come up awinner even when he loses. Jeff Bridges also comes up a winner asTucker even though he does not have a golden statuette to prove it.

With just enough realism and surrealism, Coppola plays this documentarythe way a documentary should be played - an individual with a visionand his attempt to push the limits of the envelope in post-WWIIindustrial America. The period costumes and music are excellent andaccurate, the bittersweet punchline at the end is well done and justunderstated enough. The camera work is vivid in brilliant Technicoloras opposed to the black and white sometimes reserved for this timeperiod. Frederic Forrest, Christian Slater and Joan Allen are alladequate and the gentle acting of Martin Landau complements Bridgesfrenzied portrayal. But the focus is always Jeff Bridges who carriesTucker's manic, obsessive, genius with amazing ease. Definitely one ofmy favorites.

read comments (0)

U2: Rattle and Hum

In BROADCAST NEWS, William Hurt plays a dimwit news reporter with only thelooks to get him through the day. Albert Brooks is clearly the more talentedand deserves to be on screen, but is clearly not cut out for it as much ashe should. When Hurt asks him ‘What do you do when your real life exceedsyour dreams?’ Brooks replies ‘Keep it to yourself’

A film that should have been kept in the U2 closed circle should have beenRATTLE AND HUM, which like SONG REMAINS THE SAME is a disjointed home moviemasquerading as an important motion picture.

U2 are first and foremost a rock band with a specific and loyal followingand as with all rock stars who decide to try and go beyond what they are, itis not to everyone’s taste. It is one thing to preach from the stage aboutbad things in the world, it is quite another to become mutton dressed aslamb on screen. This occasion, they are lambs ripe for theslaughter.

The fact that it didn’t last much longer than a few weeks at the USBox-office says a lot. It plays better as a movie on video and one where youcan skip to specific performances of the songs. The mixture of colour andblack and white doesn’t help either, although the cinematography in eachcase is first-rate. However, having said all that, the digital soundtrack isthe best thing about the film, doing justice to songs like BAD and WHERE THESTREETS HAVE NO NAME

Worth looking at, worth making, but overall an honourable failure and acuriousity.

It's actually not quite as pretentious as generally believed - I washoping this movie would make me want to punch Bono in the gut, thoughstrangely, it never quite provokes an especially intense disgust.

In fact, I'm almost completely indifferent to everything the whole waythrough - except during the whole B.B. King event in which I'm laughingtoo hard to pay much attention. Though cringeworthy, (B.B. seems to bethere against his will and Bono is essentially an idiot) it'sdefinitely worth a rewind or two.

Another of the few highlights includes Larry Mullen Jr. talking aboutthe Elvis Presley cinema experience. Wankery is scattered in betweenblack and white live footage that takes up the majority of the movie.The performances are a mish-mash of sweat, swaggering and the samethree notes played on repeat. If this tickles your fancy, you'll lovethe film! It's pretty awful, but it could have been a lot worse. Don'teven consider watching it if you couldn't care less about U2. If youhappen to like U2, grab a beer, watch the first 15 minutes and make upyour mind.

Much more professionally shot than the Red Rocks concert video (in which theinept cameramen kept shooting at a 45 degree angle and burned the cameralenses by aiming directly at the spotlights), but lacks the energy that madethat one so much fun. Instead, we have a pompous group of Irish twits whoseenergy and ideals have been replaced with arrogance and obnoxiety. The onlyenjoyable part is when Larry Mullen talks about why he liked Elvis movies. The lowest point in the film has to be an insufferable scene where Bonoreads his ham-handed blues song to BB King and King feels obliged to tell aself-proud Bono and the rolling cameras that "those sure are some heavylyrics." Also look for Bono’s on-stage rant about the Irish revolution. Bleah. Concert sequences are well filmed, but are typical arena rock fare. U2’s performance of "Bad" at Live Aid beats the snot out of anything here. For die hard fans only.

U2 RATTLE AND HUM (1988) ***1/2 Excellent rockumentarydirected with style by Phil Joanou about Irish rock super groupU2’s U.S tour and their powerful stage presence as well withgorgeous mix of black & white and color photography. Bono foronce doesn’t appear like a total twit. Rock on!!

U2 is one of my favorite bands, and to see them at such a unique position in their history has always been a treasure. Before the huge tours, before the renown, and before the Super Bowl, seeing the band as a group of guys still trying to cope with their meteoric rise in popularity. Always a good film to watch, especially the beginning when they do a rendition of Helter Skelter. Some might say the black and white nature of the film makes it dated and old, it helps create a world before their ZOO TV years, where all the bright colors and electronic looping changed the band forever.

As filmmaking, the U2 documentary "Rattle and Hum" is astonishing.DirectorPhil Joanou doesn’t do the old "point at the stage and shoot" routine usedby so many other concert films; rather, his camera moves about fluidly,using tracking shots, slow motion, etc. And it’s a beautifullyphotographedfilm as well - the black and white sections are stunning and the colorsequences are just as amazing. This is the film that actually caused a lotof the rock media establishment to turn against U2. But what do they know?Does Bono speechify a little bit? Yeah - but for God’s sake it’s Bono,whatdo you expect? Just sit back, enjoy the wonderful music, marvel at thedirection, and forget what the pseudo-intellects say. A great concertfilm.

I am a U2 fan, and when i saw this movie, i was amazed. It is a funny, andserious movie. The music in this movie is great other than anything else.All of the band members (Bono, The Edge, Adam and Larry) look so young andgreat in this movie, especially Larry. I almost cried when Larry was talkingabout Elvis, and how he didn’t like the fact that they burried him in thebackyard. Larry is, hands down, gorgeous, but he never ages. I love the partof the whole movie when they were first being interviewed, it was so funny.A great moment to look for in this movie is when they are all sitting downin Tenessesse adoring the boats and The Edge falls and then Bono tells TheEdge to go look around. That music playing in the backround is so nice. igive this movie *** out of *****

As an incredibly avid U2 fan I am somewhat biased toward liking this film,but it really is good. It is a chronicle of their Joshua Tree tour andincludes many live performances. the black and white filming style appliedto most of the film adds to the atmosphere wonderfully.

the definite highlight is definitely the poignant performance of their hit"Sunday Bloody Sunday" which is a cry for the end of the violence inNorthern Ireland.

Although I was not a U2 fan in 1988, Rattle and Hum was an unexpectedsurprise. When I found out U2 had a movie released in the 80’s, I assumedit would A hard day’s night revisited. I was wrong. Rattle and Hum is aconcert movie and an excellent one at that. I am a huge fan of U2, only forabout 2 years now, and seeing some of my favorite songs performed live was athrill. A lot of these songs U2 will never perform live in concert againand it was a good look in the life of U2 in the 80’s. I would recommendthis movie not to just fans of U2, but to fans of music. When you watchthis, you understand how U2 became the biggest band in the world: throughhard work and excellent songwriting.

For the U2 fan, a self-indulgent movie, for the rest, a chance to see whatit’s like to be the biggest band in the world. From the grainy openingcredits sequence containing shots of dockland Dublin, to thevertigo-inducing first splash of colour with the aerial shot of the huge SunDevil stadium, black-and-white/colour mixing has only ever been used tobetter effect once in the movies (stand up, Mr. Spielberg).Of course, this was U2 pre-irony, so it’s back to monochrome for Bono’s rantagainst the IRA and their famous eulogy to Martin Luther King to close thefilm, as if the director knew that this was the closing chapter on the’preacher’ band before they went for the visual overload of their 1990smusic.

Whether you like U2 or not, Rattle & Hum is a superbly crafted documovie, somuch so that
the music is often fighting with the direction for theattention of the viewer.

read comments (0)

The Milagro Beanfield War

Spoilers??

First 20 minutes or so may turn away some. So don’t judge the movie on thefirst 20 minutes. It does get better.

I did think some of the white’s took some of the power away from the Milagropeople. The white characters really served little purpose. This isprobably the only movie of Christopher Walken’s that you can’t tell if he’sa jacka** or not. First he shoots at the lead character and then someonetells him to uncuff him. Being true to Walken’s nature you’d think he’d besmiling right up to the point where he kills the guy. But he doesn’t andfollows orders.. Not to mention it’s got a rather conflicting ending. I really don’t knowwhat the directors intention is. Either the old man’s going to take ashortcut to the party or the angel’s taking him to heaven. You try tofigure it out.

6/10

Quality: 7/10Entertainment: 4/10Replayable: 4/10

It seems unlikely that anyone could do a better job turning this book intoamovie. There is just too much content in the book and too little time inthemovie, too much story in the book and too little depth in the movie, etc.This movie is probably as good as it gets, but it damns the book with itsmediocrity.

When I first read about this film I thought I would enjoy, It lookedoffbeatand has an excellent cast. I was wrong, what I got was a boring,pointlessmess of a movie. I think the problem was actually Redford’s directing,everything seemed so boring and out of place. The only unique thingaboutthis film was the casting, not to say that most of the actors werentmiscast, because they were but Redford put unknown actors in the lead,and"name" actors in smaller supporting roles, I thought that was aninterestingtouch. Overall a very lame movie. *1/2 out of *****.

This started off so well, with some absolutely beautiful New Mexicoscenery, I had high hopes. Unfortunately, they were dashed the rest ofthe way as director Robert Redford had to shout his Left Wing politicsloud and clear in our face.

So what we wind up with is a low-down, dishonest greedy Right Wing bigbusinessman running the poor little guys out of town and only thosegood-guy liberal activist minorities saving the day. We even get a doseof Christian bigotry here where those poor picked-on-pagan gods are runout by Christians! Well, you just know what side is going to win: yes,those wonderful left wingers, adored by the film industry.

This VHS went into a garbage can where it belonged. Adios!!

This fantasy story has some of the best cinematography ever seen. Redford,always a perfectionist, went over budget on this film and it was a big flop.However, it is still an enjoyable moving and the cinematography isbreathtaking. The story of a little community in New Mexico being bulliedover by a big businessman looking for profit in the southwestern desert.These natives stand up for themselves through the help of a small timefarmer who ignores the water laws and irrigates his beanfield. The film islifted with the performances of the two old men who have very uniquepersonalities. Also, you will never fall so much in love with a pig, withthe exception of Babe. The Milagro Beanfield War is a very entertaining andenjoyable film.

I have been reading IMDb reviews for several months, but this is thefirst time I have felt a need to add one of my own. This is mostly aresponse to the detractors of this film. Since Milagro is one of myfavourite movies I have ever seen, I was amazed at the vitriol itinspired in some people. At first it made me angry — but then, it justmade me sad to know that so many people are so ignorant of real life,and of the magical realities that exist in this mundane world. Thisfilm is probably the most real film about the most real people I haveever seen. Fat, rich, and greedy white men do indeed oppress goodpeople of colour and limited means all over the world all the time, andI suspect that the critic's vitriol had its base in the fact that thismovie so effectively portrays this oppression. To anyone who wants aninspiring, witty, funny, and heartfelt story about the 'little man' whosuccessfully stands up to the Machine, this movie is a must see.

There is a soundtrack for the movie, I own it and it's great. It's notas good as the movie and includes a few that are just the backgroundstuff but there is some excellent music. keep searching, I bought minea while ago (mid 80's?).

The movie is one of my favorites and I'd recommend it to anyone. It'salso a great movie to watch with a chic. They like the romantic aspectsand the drama while the guys like the comedy and the 'chase'. It's abit like British comedy in that there are a lot of subtle jokes but itis thoroughly entertaining for men as well as women.

I need one more line of text so here it is . . . one more line of text.

A small town of mostly Mexican residents is about to be ruined by aland developer who has visions of hotels, motels, condos, and skilodges dancing in his head. The few hundred men and women in Milagroare divided about what to do. Some see construction jobs bringing inmoney and excitement. Others feel that "our town is a family." Thedeveloper and his team of henchmen are all in this together, but theconflict between the townspeople grows until an accidental shootingtakes place. The main mean guy, Christopher Walken, hunts down theaccidental shootist, Chick Vennera, but the victim of the shootingrecovers and refuses to press charges. Richard Bradford is the head ofthe development company and gives up his attempt to buy the land,raging against his advisers. This summary makes it sound like someangry docu-drama, but it's a surprisingly gentle and whimsical movie.

This is a kind of tricky area to deal with in any kind of fiction. Thetendency is to make the villagers and the interlopers generic. How manytimes have we seen these romanticized peasants? They always go abouttheir business in a languid informal manner. They sing a lot. They eatwith gusto. They don't mind a drink now and then. They have a greatsense of humor and a mystical feeling for the land. Often there's ahighly respected, or at any rate easily tolerated, dotty ancient man orwoman.

And how often have we seen the equivalent of these land developers?They dress in suits and ties. They're full of guile. They press the lawto its limits and maybe a little beyond. They have no particularfeelings for each other. Their only interest is pelf.

The director, Robert Redford, doesn't entirely avoid these clichés, buthe keep them about as toned down as this kind of story permits. Some ofthe actors aren't that convincing, but Christopher Walken certainly is.Every performance he gives seems like a polished gem. The film hasvirtues beyond the plot and the other usual elements. The photographycaptures a magnificent landscape. Not staggeringly majestic — not theGrand Canyon — not that raw — but a silent and self-satisfied oceanof pinyon and juniper clotted rolling hills. You can almost smell thePinesol.

Alas, though, the tony resort development is a canard. That's not theproblem facing these small-town good guys. It's the people who aregoing to live in those condos and ski on those slopes that present theproblem and the problem extends far beyond the town limits of Milagroor even San Juan County. And it's not a pleasant problem to contemplatebecause it involves us.

The people who will live in those condos must live somewhere, and someday they will have to live here, and, as the local editor, John Heard,points out, they'll demand clean water and restaurants. Taxes willskyrocket and urban sprawl will sprawl.

In 1950, the population of the earth was roughly 2 billion. It's now 6billion and by 2050 will have doubled.

Robert Bradford and the Ladd Devine Develo
pment company may give up indisgust but can anyone doubt that there will be another such entityoffering greater bribes ten years from now? Or that eventually one oranother such entity will get what it wants? Or that such entities areonly the thin end of the wedge of a change process whose proportionsare monumental?

The good folks of Milagro are going to lose their village, just likeeverybody else. But how can we argue against population growth? Youmight as well argue against motherhood and apple pie.

The tiny New Mexico town of Milagro is about to be taken over bydevelopers. However farmer Joe Mondragon (Chick Vennera) builds abeanfield using their water. This sparks off a war that threatens toget more and dangerous between the developers and townspeople.

This came (and went) very quickly in 1988. The only reason it was madeat all was because director Robert Redford's previous film ("OrdinaryPeople") had been a big hit and won multiple Oscars. The title aloneprobably turned away most moviegoers. That's too bad because this is asweet, lyrical movie. It somehow manages to draw the viewer into thissmall town and the inhabitants and make you care and side with them. Ithelps that there is some simply gorgeous cinematography and it has anOscar-winning score that perfectly matches the films mood and tone.Also there is a huge cast of American and Latino actors–all of themare just great! The beautiful Sonia Braga is on hand and takes a minorrole and really brings it to life. Also there's a simply wonderfulscene where John Heard tells off evil Christopher Walken (Walken'salways dazed expression perfectly fits this scene). A one of a kindbeautiful film.

The films R rating is unnecessary. There's no nudity, sex and minorbloodless violence. There's a little swearing but it's casual and doneso quickly you're not even aware of it. It deserves a PG-13. Worthcatching but not for everybody.

I have seen many of the actors & actresses that are in this movie in otherfilms. This movie brings out the BEST in all of them. Blades & Sterns wereexcellent. This is one movie were Melinie Griffins doesn’t come off as asex pot. It gave such a nice warm feeling to be part of this small town.The back ground music was light but added a lot. I own this movie and watchit often. Thanks

read comments (0)

The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!

The Naked Gun: From The Files of Police Squad! (1988) D: David Zucker.Leslie Nielsen, Priscilla Presley, Ricardo Montalban, George Kennedy, OJSimpson, Susan Beaubian, Nancy Marchand. The incompetent cop from the POLICESQUAD TV series (Nielsen) sets out to foil a plot to assassinate QueenElizabeth. The ultimate spoof film, with a gag literally every five seconds.Not nearly as funny as one might expect, but certainly worth a repeatviewing. It practically restarted Leslie Nielsen’s career as a spoof leadingman. RATING: 7 out of 10. Rated PG-13 for sexual innuendoes, slapstickviolence, and profanity.

I haven’t seen Airplnae, but this film is probably the satire ever! Ithas great sight gags, and the one-liner jokes are hilarious. So what ifit is overacted by Leslie Nielson, it was still very funny. Iespecially liked when the cop goes into the hospital to see that guywho fell into the water. Hilarious. ZAZ has done it again. And i barelyever find American humour funny (’cept Scary Movie 3, Shriek If Youknow What I did last fiday13th and Rat Race). Overall, best film ever(kidding, but still extremely good) If every other comedy film was puttogether, it still would not equal up to this. (cept Airplane, but likeis said, i haven’t seen it.)

the naked gun is beyond hilarious. it’s gotto be the funniest movie of the 80’s! andone of the funniest movies of all time. justabout every gag in this movie works. thebaseball game at the end is justclassic. this movie is non-stop funny. someof the funniest scenes you’ll ever see. it’snon-stop pure fun. the timing of the jokesare just great. for a great beyond hilarioustime watch this movie. i give this movie***1/2 out of ****

This is the beginning of one of the best and definetely the funniest trilogyout there.

Leslie Nielsen is very funny and good as Frank Drebin, a cop who messes upeverything all the time but still manages to succeed every time.

This movie is really dumb, but in the "good" sense of the word, if there issuch a thing. The gags are really funny and yes you do laugh a lot, but thelack of value of this movie made me not give it more than a 6 out of10.

Classic comedy by makers of "Airplane." Nielsen is so good as Lt. Drebin.Great spoof of cheesy detective films and romance ones too (see life sizecondom scene). So many great parts. My favorite: when Hocken says thereisa 10 % chance of there being a 50/50 chance of Nordberg recovering. Thisistruly great comedy, reminiscent of Peter Sellers as the bumbling InspectorClouseau. I’m split between Sellers and Nielsen and the Pink Panthers andNaked Guns, as to which are better. Who cares, their allgreat.

Naked Gun is definetly one of the best movies of the genre, ZAZ are thebestbunch of guys in writing those screenplays, I must have watched this filmatleast 20 times and each time my finger pushes play it’s continous laughtertill the last photogram.Leslie Nielsen (Frank), George Kennedy (Ed), And O.J.Simpson(Nordberg)all get thumb up, I,m still waiting for the 44 and 1/444.

Carlo

Leslie Neilsen is great as he reprises his television role as LT.FrankDrebban from Police Squad this time he must try to foil a plan to killQueenElizabeth 2 at a local Braves game. But he must first get through hisfeelings for a cop lover played hilariously by Presilla Presley. O. JSimpson has a small role as an idiot cop named Norbert. I give this film 3stars out of a possible 5.

This film is one of my favourite comedies. Leslie Nielson is great asFrankDrebbin, and most of the other members of the cast are great too. Therearelouds of gags in this, and most are very very funny. The plot, sense andtaste all take second place to the comedy. Anyone with a sense of humourwill love this.

Minor Spoilers

I just laugh at this movie ever time I see it which I have seen this alot!Everything is so funny. I don`t know what part is funnier whether its whenNielson is in Ricardo`s room playing with the rare pen and the fish orwhenhe is at the press conference or when he is up on the siding of thebuildingor could it be the beginning of the film or could it be the great baseballgame? Like I said this movie is so funny.There are two sequels to theNakedGun but to ME this is the best of the three. If you need a good laugh orcheer someone up this is the movie to watch!

MINOR SPOILERS:This movie has had the status of classic bestowed upon it,which i find frankly ludicrous. How can a film which features a scene ofbarely disguised sadism right at the start, (which involves an ordinary copbeing burned, shot and humiliated), takes in many sexist jokes, then finallytakes pleasure in an act of unintentional cannibalism be funny? LeslieNielsen doesn’t act in this movie, he merely remains stubbornly wooden, thenfalls down when the script requires it. The real problem about this "comedy"is that it doesn’t care about its characters. Even farces, such as this,should treat their protagonists with a modicum of respect, and not to do somakes laughing at them seems cruel, rather like kicking a puppy who can’twalk properly yet. This is crude junk, a smear on film history, and is awaste of your time. Watch it if you want to feel depressed.

read comments (0)

The Lair of the White Worm

at a dig outside a hotel of sorts, Angus finds a skull of of an animal,it could be a cow or it could be the head of a reptile. it just turnsout that the same house where the dig is being set, the mother andfather who owned the house, disappeared without a trace.

Legend has it that centuries ago, the then lord of D'ampton slayed thewhite worm, and since then, they have been celebrating the defeat ofthe worm at a sort of party yearly.

strange things start to happen, lady sylvia marsh arrives on the sceneand people start to get attacked and start to act differently. thefathers watch is found and so the search resumes for the parents.

what happens from here is a visceral journey of blasphemy and paganismwhich is really confusing to describe as a plot but it is worthwatching.

russell has made an assault on the senses just like he did with alteredstates, and makes his obsession with phalluses and the phallic symbolevident. the is intensely erotic and has intense images that aresometimes disturbing and sometimes damn near confusing.

the story and narrative is easy to understand but very hard to explain.the only real acting standout is donohoe who makes a convincingtemptress.

the rest of the cast are below par, but this is one film that does nottake itself too seriously.

a great guilty pleasure.

THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM was a film that was about a era aka "the men ofthe cloth" and delt with occultism in europe. This era was tied in with themystery religion sect craze aka ie. the freemasons, set egypt sects, thulesetc. around mid 1800’s. This production was tounge and cheek and had acontroversial tone. The film marks the first appearance of HUGH GRANT whowith ANGUS his "grenade hiding under the kilt by his willy" sidekicksinglehandedly save the women and vanquish a satanist cult tied in with theroman empire from their small community. The film uses sexual metaphor andbondage as a commentary on satanic cult seduction and the "adam and eve"tale. The film uses over the top metaphor and dark humor to convey it’sstory. Different from previous films like THE WICKER MAN, this film had attimes an experimental video look and was a cross between a cult classicmovieand an experimental piece. Interesting film which combines visual allurewiththe battle of good and evil plot. The story could have been done indifferent formats…this one uses a dry british AVENGERS style wit.Currently the film has an underground following abroad. Enjoy. 4 out of 7stars.

Sammi Davis, what can you say? She has got to be the worst actress ofall time, yet possibly the most seriously deluded. Check out this pileof horse poop, "The Rainbow" and "Hope and Glory". She’s the samewooden dork in all three.

I just read her whining 1991 interview after she’d moved to LA (run hername through Google). She slams Britain for not appreciating her"overwhelming acting talent and she’s so glad to leave this dirtyIsland". Puleasse, you’ve go to be kidding me Missy! Strange thing is,The U.S. doesn’t seem to have appreciated her much either, because shehasn’t "acted" in a movie for 6 years and the few before that seem herusual "standard". She also moans that Brits don’t accept an actorunless they have had formal training and surprise, surprise, shehasn’t. She had virtually no training and boy it shows.

I’m glad you’re working as a photographer now Sammi. Anything butacting has to be an improvement and blessing for us all. Stay behindthe camera for ever. Oh and as for your bad-mouthing the UK, well, goodriddance! America is welcome to your sorry ass.

Sammi Davis, the worst actor to ever be allowed on the big screen?

This is a campy film that most will enjoy for the sheer "cheeziness" of itall. On a shoe string budget, Ken Russell made an enjoyable film. DVDversion features commnentary from Russell which made the purchaseworthwhilefor me!

Director Ken Russell brings us another fun, wicked and ultra campy outing.This time around a small sleepy town is plagued by a series of murders andit seems a snake / vampire cult that worships a giant worm is behind itall.Even though the budget is extremely low, this delivers the goods. Thescriptis smart, intelligent and funny. Amanda Donohoe is a riot. Huge Grant’sserious performance works 100%. A real treat.

Rated R; Sexual Situations, Rape, Violence, Profanity, and Nudity.

Wow, I can’t believe this movie is actually in here….I first saw itwhen Iwas 15, drunk at a buddy’s house, and afterwards I thought I hallucinatedthe whole affair.A lot has been said about the horrendous production values (that hugesnakein the pit??? WTF?) and the overobvious sexual imagery (I have the imageofthat dildo scarred on my mind forever), so all I’ll say is this: eventhough this movie ranks in the lowest of my faves, the sheerentertainmentvalue in watching it can’t be beat. Definately a high campclassic….

Here comes one of those weird Ken Russel flicks(the one behind the bizarre"Gothic"). This one is about an archeologist Angus Flint(Peter Capaldi)whodigs up the skull of a creature from many centuries ago. Lady SylviaMarsh(Amanda Donohoe)is a reincarnated pagan member who steals the skullfrom the room of Flint and goes about her business of pursuing EveTrent(Catherine Oxenburgh)who is a virgin to sacrifice to the white wormwhich rests in a green abyss in a lair nearby her mansion. Sylvia is somesort of serpent and tends to bite male genitalia in order to take control ofthem and turn them into her snake servants(with me so far). Hugh Grant(yesthat Hugh Grant)portrays Lord James D’Ampton,a very rich lord who is datingEve. Anyways this film is wildly bizarre as most Russell films are as wellas quite frightening. It has one of those shocking endings,but is also veryoff-putting and sick.**/*****

Ken Russell has made a masterpiece. I really believe this is one of thebest of all time!

Staring Hugh Grant and Amanda Donahue this film is a weird mix oferoticism, scary psychedelic hallucinations, a Gothic hammer horrorfilm, British charm and lots of snakes.

The storyline is weird, in typical Ken Russell nature, and the actingand special effects leave a lot to be desired, but this almost adds tothe brilliance of this film.

I love this film. If you have any sense so will you, especially if youare into Ken Russell or want to see what Hugh Grant was doing beforeHollywood. 5/5

The lair of the white worm is an interesting British film about animmortal worm and the female keeper. The worm woman keeper has theability to become a vampire like person and goes around biting otherpeople. Once bitten they become subordinate vampires doing the biddingof the worm woman as she attempts to sacrifice a virgin (Oxenberg) tothe D'Ampton worm. An archaeologist (Capaldi) a local girl (Davis) andher sister (Oxenberg) and their rich 'mate' (Grant) fight the wormwoman and try to keep the area safe. Some good camera work, strangespecial effects/flashbacks, typical brit dialog with dry humor and agreat performance by the worm woman (Donohoe) make the film worthwatching.

Spoilers herein.

Ken Russell makes the assumption that you are exceedingly dull, so explainsevery joke, even wrapping the simplest formulaic device in endlessexposition. A skilled watcher will dig below his horizon.

Luckily, we have the character Mary. She is played by Sammi Davis, whoactually has some depth as an actress, and who seems to envelop this visionin her own. Some of that may be deliberate in her Virgin Mother character,but most — it seems — is because she is so much more intelligent than thefilmmaker.

There’s danger in following this thread — you can get lost in the higherlayers of pagan mesmerism. But after a few
viewings, you can see that she isthe real master of the petty destinies here.

read comments (0)

The Land Before Time

This movie just wasn’t something I enjoyed. Quite frankly, I found itratherboring. I don’t know why. Maybe it was because I didn’t see this movieuntilI started babysitting, so I was too old to be moved by it. Maybe it wasbecause I saw "The Lion King," which had a somewhat similar plot, first.Whatever the reason, I just didn’t find "Land Before Time" entertaining.Please don’t send me messages saying that I’m heartless or cruel oranything. I just didn’t like it that much.

Here’s where the two chief elements of a film cause it to fail. This isshocking considering both are rudimentary. Only an idiot could have screwedthis up.

The first is Bluth’s artistry itself. I never admired his art (read myother reviews of his work for more on that), but this takes the rotten cakefor ultimate cheapness. If Disney had pumped the amount of money and detailas in ‘Lion King’ into this, the visual appearance wouldn’t resemble a crude80s production. Even Transformers and G.I. Joe have the same level ofdetail–totally sickening.

The second is the dinosaurs. While there are a few highlights at thebeginning and end, the ultimate depiction of the creatures isn’t anythingrevolutionary…more in line with the stereotypical designs that Disneystarted and have retained. Compare what you see here to when Spielberg tookthe control reigns himself with ‘Jurassic Park’.

Overall, yet another Bluth work for you and your kids to avoid. Have themwatch ‘Wizards’ instead; it’s an intelligent conceived failure unlike thismess.

Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud

Animated family film from Don Bluth and his animation team concernsorphaned dinosaur and his misfit friends searching for vegetationduring prehistoric freeze. Some of the action sequences are hectic andconfusing, with one dinosaur battle taking place during a mammothearthquake (!), but otherwise the picture is rather sweet and harmless.This is probably the closest Bluth will come to duplicatingold-fashioned Disney, even if they don’t quite have that studio’ssuperior quality down. Some lovely moments, even for grown-ups.Followed by the video-sequel "The Land Before Time II: The Great ValleyAdventure" in 1994 and other cheaper sequels after that. ** from ****

If you find it hard to explain to your child what happens to Bambi’s mominthe movie "Bambi", then this one won’t be any better. Littlefoot getsorphaned early on in this movie and goes from one tragic near-miss toanother. The idea that all of the young dinosaurs stick together and worktowards a mutual goal is OK, but, man, I thought they’d never get there!

It’s too emotionally harrowing for a kid to enjoy… my kids becamedisinterested early on. Not a recommended movie.

I remember as a kid, I was in love with this film. I mean I was reallyin love with it. It was such a great movie for kids to watch. And whenI see it now, it’s still a fun movie to watch. It unfortunately has beenover runned by sequels. And musical sequels? I don’t think so. But Iwas surprised that it only has a rating of 6.3. I thought it would’vehad at least a 7.1. But I would highly recommend this film. It is verywonderful for the kids to watch. And I think the grown up’s can getinto it as well. I should probably buy the DVD now. I think I wore outthe VHS when I was younger. ;P

8/10

Do you see any Dinosaurs? This land the North Americas is where theyare suppose to be. There natural habitat for humanity is right here inAmerica. How many people do you think are those dinosaurs? You foundyour homeland security mission. Do you see the mess you all made? Cleanit up. You all are almost out of your oil. Hurry up Hurry up!! How manylicks does it take to see the future when you lick a tootsie roll? Whocares just lick the damn thing and find the hell out. What fule sourceare you all gonna use? Electrickity is about to go out soon who isgonna help you bring it back? Not I i want it to go out and stay offfor good…

The land before time is my childhood movie, i’ve grown up watching thelandbefore time and i still love the films. Littlefoot is born and he loseshismother in a earthquake, his mother gives him the message on how is knowstheway to the great valley, on his journey he meets more dinosaurs, they allbegin there was to the great valley. They get to the great valley and theysee their parents again for the 2nd time

This was one of my favorite moves as a kid. I remeber seeing 1 or 2 of thesequels, but by the time they got to around #5 I had grown out of it. Andihave an inkling that since the sequels went straight-to-video, theyweren’tvery good. I loved this first one though.

"The Land Before Time" is a wonderful children’s film. I am 16 years old,and it was my favorite cartoon when I was young. Parents should definitelyconsider buying this movie for their young ones. I haven’t seen the other 4or 5 sequels, but I am sure they are just as great as the original. And asfor older kids, teens, and adults, I encourage you also to go out and rentthe video if you’ve never seen it.

I think that the LAND BEFORE TIME is a really great filmespecially for younger kids. I’m 15 and it’s still on my top ten favourite filmlist and I give it a rating of 10.

read comments (0)

Stand and Deliver

I very rarely jump on my soapbox when it comes to matters of pureopinion, such as who should have won an academy award. But I just have to inthis case. Edward James Olmos not only turned in one of the most rounded,believable and drop-dead staggering performances of the year. Bar a handfulof similar performances - Robert De Niro in The King of Comedy - this is thehigh-water mark of the decade, when it comes to acting. How on gods earththe Academy could deem Michael Douglas a more worthy candidate of that yearsOscar is startling.Stand and Deliver is a simple movie premise - the battle againstimpossible odds. But told with intelligence, humour and some quality acting.The setting’s are right. The bunch of hoodlums, layabouts and kids from thewrong side of the tracks, are nigh on perfect. Lou Diamond Phillips in asmall, but telling role, displays an awesome acting promise - that wassomehow never fulfilled. However this film belongs to Olmos. It is hisstrength and nigh on perfect display of acting proficiency, that makes youswallow this never sugary, but border-line sweet, affair. By the end of themovie your punching your hands in the air with him, as he strolls down thecorridor. Breathtaking stuff, many would argue not worthy of the kind ofacclaim lavished on ‘Raging Bull’, but I would have to say, it is not faroff it. Whatever happened to Olmos after this movie? He appears to havedisappeared back to his character actor roots. I’m sorry but the academygot it way wrong in ‘87, so check this movie out to see why. The ultimatefeel-good flick!!!

I saw this movie ten years ago, long before I had to face logarithims,asymptotes, and all the rest of the fun stuff that is calculus. I enjoyeditthen, and I enjoy it even more, having survived a Calculuscourse.

Olmos is outstanding in an Oscar-nominated performance as Jaime Escalante,who, in the early 1980s, used the most unconventionalmethods to teach his students basic algebra. The students,predominantly Hispanic, have the acumen for it, but mosthaven’t taken advantage of it. Escalante works to instill"ganas" (desire) in them, teaching them that math is a step-by-stepprocess.At one point, he informs them that theorigins of algebra go back to their ancestors, the Mayans,assuring his students that they have math in their blood.His methods prove successful, building confidence in the students andshaming the naysayers.

Part of the reason I like this movie is the way Escalanteaims to motivate his students and set higher goals. There’sascene where he talks to a student who’s accepted a job asamechanic in his uncle’s garage, and Escalante informs himof the market for good auto engineers, asking him, "Wouldn’tyou rather be building these things than repairing them?"He understands that the world will use their background as a stigma, andhishope is that they will go beyond what theworld would define them as.

There’s also a fiery scene at the ETS office, where Escalanteasks to see the test scores. He is refused, which is thecatalyst for a heated diatribe against the agency’s bigotry.("If this were Beverly Hills High, they wouldn’t have sentyou two to investigate", Escalante says.)

All in all, this is a film that after 12 years still holdsup.Olmos’ towering performance and a message of empowermentmakethis a must-see.

I saw this again recently and it still holds up. Edward James Olmos andLou Diamond Phillips lead the cast (all of whom are excellent) in aninspiring true story of inner-city Latino kids learning highermathematics and qualifying for university.

I was once again enthralled with the no-nonsense approach of theteacher and how he inspired his students not just to learn but to exceland aspire to a world outside their own ethnic boundaries.

*****Minor Spoiler****

Tension is created in the disbelief engendered by the Examination Board(a small part for Andy Garcia here)at this number of mainly Mexicanteenagers having such high calculus marks.

Not to be missed. 8 out of 10

I saw this movie for the first time 2.5 years ago.

This takes place in the Hispanic Neighborhood of LA.

A teacher who is portrayed by Edward Olmos is attending at some actualhigh school in L.A.

This class room has students that didn't pass Geomentry because theyeither caused too much trouble or they just didn't get how to do it.

At first they didn't respect their new teacher, but within time they'lltreat him with respect. After he uses hard love and the right lessonsin geometry.

This was based off of a true story. And proves that one teacher canmake a difference in the school district of LA.

I recommend it to class movies or just something new to rent.

I write this in response to the review by contributor kari_marie. I wasgoing to write about another film, Coach carter, which clearly drawsinspiration from this film, but I thought I'd check the book on Standand Deliver to remind myself of details, and then read kari_marie'sperceptive - and troubling - review.

Six years ago, the racist football coaches at the State University ofNew York College at Brockport pressured the dean of humanities to askme to resign a post as adjunct writing instructor. They wanted me topass the white ball-players who weren't showing up for class, and tofail the black dancing majors to keep up the school's facade of havingacademic "standards". Since this was all done verbally, there were norecords to challenge. Then, of course, George Bush was president, andwith a racist in the white House, I wasn't going to get far complainingabout a bunch of KKK jocks in Nowhere New York.

The terrible secret to American education systems and the theories uponwhich they are based is that they are embedded with the hiddenassumption, not simply that some students are doomed to fail, but thatthey ought to fail - it is necessary for the economy for these studentsto fail. If we had an educational plan by which they could all succeed,our current political leaders would have to trash it, just to make surethat they fail. They fill the bottom 10-20% of the national labor pool.

The reader may think I'm kidding; but economists have been growing moreand more honest about this since the unemployment level went down near5%; the academic economist community then began talking about, well,how can we get this level even lower; and it quietly dawned on themthat, given the American economy as it is, that's simply not possible.

This has been implicit in American education theory since a majorconference of education theorists met at Harvard in about 1899 or 1901,and decided that the American education system couldn't accommodate theperceived immigrant threat of that era, the Italians. Yep, the Italianswere judged to be ineducable, doomed to fail, doomed to lives asjanitors and washerwomen. If it hadn't been for the parochial, RomanCatholic school systems in major cities, Italians would probably havehad to ship back to Italy to get a decent education.

In the 1930s, when the public school system was at last organizingsecondary schools (high schools), it was the liberal philosopher, theprofessed "democratic socialist", John Dewey, who announced that thereal purpose of high school was warehousing the unemployable.

Americans of northern-European descent are now in the minority of thepopulation. we are still cursed with their insufferable prejudices,their brutal puritanism, their psychotic economic principles, and weprobably will be until we have a president whose first language at homewas Spanish. That day is heck of a lot closer than cement-brains likeBush would like to believe - but it is as inevitable as daylight atdawn.

For the time being, films like Stand and Deliver and Coach Carter mustcontinue to be made to remind us that this assumption - that there arestudents who simply must fail - is wrong, wrong-headed, unjus
t, unfair,and unproductive.

Hopefully, the time will come when our teachers are all allowed to beEscalantes and Carters, and we shall see all our students succeed -which is their right, as Americans, and as human beings.

By the way, none of this would be meaningful if Stand and Deliver werenot the well-crafted, entertaining film that it most certainly is -filled with fine performances, neat plot-twists, a rich sense of humor.(Coach Carter is a little more formulaic, but I recommend that as afine film as well.)

Stand and Deliver is another movie about life in the classroom and thepolitics of school. Edward James Olmos earned an Academy Awardnomination for his performance as the over-dedicated, overworkedteacher who chooses to do so much and get so little. The movie showshow his class of mostly Latino students from South Central Los Angeleshas changed from kids who just wanted to get through to students whohoped to go to college and have a better life. I'm not much of a mathstudent myself but I admire the character's dedication to keepingstudents on Saturdays and summer breaks, winter breaks, spring breaks,before and after school to help them achieve. Most teachers won't dothat despite it all he does it. The outcome is interesting and he isrewarded despite everything. He is a teacher who cares about hisstudents and does everything possible to get them to achieve theunthinkable. We all like stories about the underdog and this is one ofhim. UNfortunately in real life, this teacher went back to SouthAmerica and the politics of the school system is the reason that heleft. ALl the red tape and politics in the public school system isenough to make you vomit, I know because i am trying to become alicensed and certified secondary education teacher in English.

As a group together we all agreed that "Stand and Deliver" was veryinspirational, and that we all felt motivated to try harder, because nomatter what people say we can or cannot do, nothing is unachievable. Wehave the world in our hands and we can reach all limits, with the timeand work we put in. One of the scenes in particular that we all foundinteresting was when the character Angel Guzman (Lou Diamond Phillips)took his grandmother to the hospital. In the beginning of the film, wewere all led to believe that he was just a bad seed, but he showed hisother side through compassion for his grandmother. Angel Guzman tookresponsibility for his actions and pushed himself, the ultimate resultbeing success. By success we mean how he started getting serious withhis education, and worked harder to pass the AP calculus exam.

Hamit Koci, Lina Eisner, Greg Caputo

We all liked the movie "Stand and Deliver." The movie was verymotivating and inspirational. The director, Ramon Menendez, and theactors did a very good job in making this movie. We definitelyrecommend the movie "Stand and Deliver." The movie takes place in arundown neighborhood in East Los Angeles. No one, not even theteachers, believed in the students. The students weren't even expectedto graduate high school. In this movie they only have one person whobelieves in them and that person is their math teacher Mr. Escalante,played by Edward James Olmos. This movie shows the struggles that thestudents did go through to succeed. They succeeded. We, the viewers,feel that when people set goals they won't stop until they reach them.

Melissa Alonso, Rafael Reyes, and Melissa McBride

The best line to sum up "Stand and Deliver" was when Edward JamesOlmos's character, Jaime Escalante, said that the only reason theCollege Board is questioning the test scores is because the studentshave Spanish last names. There were many key points of the movie thatwe liked. This movie showed you how to overcome adversity. The studentshad to prove that they were smart and they showed there hard workpaying off. They were under the microscope everyday from there parentsdown to the administration in the school. They were expected to failthe test because of there ethnicity but they proved everyone wrong..That really told you what they were going threw by going to thatschool. My feelings about this move are that it shows you what hardwork and determination will get you what u want if you keep your mindfocused and work at anything you will get what you deserve. The part ofthe movie that touched me was when the principal found out the testscores. The reason why that touched us was because that he doubted thekids. But when they passed they proved him wrong, he was so proud ofthem. This movie should be recommended for high school students.

Lance R. Crooks, Pat Klipper, Donna Avella, and Jessica Lelo

Robin Smith, Jeffry Rodriguez, Kim Cwiakala, Patricia Mazzoccoli We allloved Ramon Menendez's movie "Stand and Deliver." It was veryentertaining and touching at the same time because of the struggles andaccomplishments made by the students Garfield High School in East LosAngeles, California. It had a negative situation that was taken andbrought into a positive ending. It inspired people. Each characterplayed their part in bringing understanding of a harsh life of someonewho came from a poor neighborhood, and who goes from being nothing tobecoming something and showing everyone what he/she are capable ofdoing. We recommend the film to anyone who interested in seeing how thestudents struggled to become better people. As Mr. Escalante laid inthe hospital bed after having a heart attack he came up with an idea tokeep teaching his students and help them prepare for the retake of theAP Calculus Exam. He sent his students a Calculus problem on a napkinfrom the hospital to the classroom.

read comments (0)

Rain Man

"Rain Man" is a magnificent film with absolutely riveting performances fromits two stars Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise.

Hoffman plays Raymond an autistic adult who has been institutionalizedsince his youth. Cruise plays Charley a small time hustler who upon hisfather’s death, finds out that unknown to him, he has a brother (Hoffman)that he knew nothing about.

Hoffman reportedly researched his character by spending time with autisticpatients, prior to the filming. The results are amazing. He has all of themannerisms and habits of an autistic person down pat. You actually believehe is autistic he is so convincing. He richly deserved the Academy Awardthat he won for his performance.

Cruise, because of his pretty boy image, is not given the credit that he isdue as an actor. In "Rain Man", his character goes from a self-centeredhustler, to one of compassion, love and understanding over the course of themovie. He complements Hoffman’s performance perfectly.

There is a touching scene in an elevator between Valerie Galino as Cruise’girlfriend and Hoffman where she gives him a kiss and he responds by sayinginnocently, that it was sloppy.

Watch for Director Barry Levenson as a psychiatrist near the end of thefilm.

"Rain Man" deservedly won the 1988 Academy Award for best picture is is atrue classic.

Young, self-centered man goes home to the Midwest for his father funeral andlearns not only that he´s been cut out of his inheritance, but that he has agrown brother who´s autistic, and who´s been kept in an insitution for mostof his life. The Balance of the film details the growing relationshipbetween the two man. Oscars winner for Best Picture, Directing (BarryLewinson), Actor (Hoffman) and writing (Ronald Bass.

Dustin Hoffman give a really convincing performance has an Raymond Babbit,an autistic savant. I’m glad he took home the oscar for this movie. TomCruise was good also has Charlie, Raymond’s angry on life brother. It was agood road movie of two brothers trying to connect in there own way. Theoscars missed a good performance by Tom Cruise. He should have beennominated.

Rain Man is a good film, but slow at times. In spite of some stagnant partsand the undeniable presence of the eighties in music and clothing, this is agreat movie for all those who appreciate the nuances of life and personalrelationships. Dustin Hoffman’s performance is believable and genuine, acrucial part of making this film a success.

This is a very good film. It is entertaining, and moving. There are thingsabout the character Raymond that are very ‘right on’. The drawback of themovie, is that society now seems to think every autistic person they meetis"like Rain Man". The anxiety, the need for repetitive behavior, yea thatisa pretty good portrayal. Just remember though, in the end, it is just amovie and not every autistic person you meet is going to have phenomenalsavant skills, or will ‘learn’ any social skills in a short period oftime.

This film is superb, and Hoffmans portrayal of a man with Savant Syndrome isspot on. And people should bear in mind that the number of autistic peoplewho also have savant syndrome is around 5%, so special skills such asRaymond’s are extremely rare. As someone who has studied Autism and who hascorresponded with Dr Darold Treffert MD, the worlds leading savant expertand consultant on the movie Rain Man, I wholly endorse this films portrayalof Savant syndrome itself, an autistic person forced into society againsthis will, and the way in which some people would seek to abuse the gifts ofsavants.

This was one of my favorite movies of all time. It features Dustin Hoffmanin perhaps his best role ever as Raymond, an autistic savant. His brotherCharlie (played well by Tom Cruise), who to this point was totally unawareof Raymond’s existence (because the latter has been in an institution) untilhe learns that his father has left Raymond his inheritance, "kidnaps"Raymond to get his fair share of daddy’s money. The result is a touchingcross-country drive where both characters teach each other a little aboutlife.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I think the acting was perfect, and thedirecting was crisp.

*** out of ****

Rain Man works primarily because of the strong performances by DustinHoffman and Tom Cruise. At the end of the day, the acting is all you reallyhave with Rain Man. The story is very straight forward, which is fine forthis type of film. Rain Man hasn’t aged particularly well, which makes onewonder if the film truly deserved its Best Picture Oscar. Tom Cruise’sstereotypical character has been seen in a thousand different films. Thehard-nailed guy who only cares about money finally finds a person that openshis heart, and eventually makes him a better person. Although Rain Man isquite typical in its premise, the acting is outstanding. Dustin Hoffman wonan AcademyAward for his performance, and while it might seemed forced, it is actuallyquite accurate for an autistic. A good film, but has lost some of itsimpact over the years.

Great movie about Charlie Babbit (Cruise) who finds out about the existenceof his older autistic and highly-gifted brother Raymond (Hoffman) aftertheir father died. Charlie wants to get his share out of the $ 3 millioninheritance his father left Raymond. Recorded in California, Ohio,Oklahoma,Indiana, Kentucky and Nevada this movie is a masterpiece when it comes tophotography as well. A must-see!

See Rain Man but don’t obsess over it. This movie isn’t anything that istobe held in high regard. 1988 was a poor year for films so that’s the onlyreason why it won Best Picture. The screenplay is good at first, then getsexhausting. Dustin Hoffman’s performance is the same way. Actually,everything in this movie is that way. Hans Zimmer’s score was a plus. Nottoo great but not bad either. Won four Oscars including Best Picture(1988),Best Director and Best Actor (Dustin Hoffman).

read comments (0)