Reviews

I can't say enough about this wonderful little film! It is so human and so real and filled with rich dialog. It's like "Terms of Endearment," or "As Good as it Gets" with a gay angle. I mention these James L. Brooks gems because it reminded me of those films in that it had the same type of natural, humanistic and humorous touches in dealing with serious issues. Believe me this not easy to pull off these days and the cast has a lot to do with it including the kids. But also the script is great it's so full of honesty and humor. But here we are in 2010 and we finally get a film that portrays a gay couple as 'human beings' warts and all Wow what a concept.

I realize that this film is preaching to the converted in a lot of ways but I bet if a lot of more conservative people were to check out this film it would make them think twice about judging others….well some of them anyway. It really is that good.

Some people here on IMDb are annoyed or angry about the bisexual subplot in the film. I personally thought it was hilarious and kind of hot! I was however a bit perplexed at how it goes somewhat unresolved in the end but ultimately didn't ruin the film for me because as Julianne Moore's character states earlier in the film "human sexuality is complicated." No one is perfect but everybody seems to learn something about their lives including Mark Ruffalo's character and as far as movies go these days that may be as good as it gets!

Oh and the other great movie of 2010 for me would have to be Toy Story 3!

I really don't know what to say after viewing Martin Scorsese's mesmerizing three-hour+ made for PBS film except that I am truly impressed. And although it is more of a chronicle of an era (the early 1960's and what lead to Dylan's fame) then a biography of Bob Dylan I was surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. At first I was skeptical, I thought it had pretensions of grandeur: Dylan/and Scorsese? I mean come on guys!? But the piece delivered. It was cut in such a way that seemed to create drama out of raw material. Although ponderous at times the film not only held my interest but made me want to find out more about Bob Dylan, the NYC folk scene, Pete, Seger, Woody Guthrie, Allen Ginsberg, Liam Clancy, Joan Baez and many others. The interviews were fascinating, humorous and sometimes truly educational. There is a purpose and a true sense of that time to the film that is unlike most other "rock" documentaries. In one of my favorite interviews in the film Bob Neuwirth explains how in the early 60's money (financial success) was not an issue when it came to the arts. Back then it was about if an artist had something to say. Weather it was Bob Dylan or Ornette Coleman what people would ask was "does he (the artist) have something to say." Money and the "bottom line" didn't enter into the equation. It was a whole different world back then. Neuwirth states this so glibly that you'll wish you had a time-machine to go back and check it out for yourself. I have at least one friend who was disappointed in the film. He felt that it didn't illuminate the life of Dylan enough in that it ends in 1966 with him being "booed" offstage for "going electric." But apparently this is all Dylan wanted to reveal for this film. He (and his people) gave Martin Scorsese specific instructions to only chronicle this period. Scorsese was asked to sort through hours of material (including 10-hours of recent Dylan interviews). The result is amazing considering these limitations. Instead of illuminating the Dylan myth the film uses "myth" to stir a powerful narrative, one that rivals many of Scosese's latest cinematic endeavors. Perhaps another director would have tried to create something more definitive regarding the details of Dylans life and songwriting process but Scorsese has always favored myth over reality in him films. And in the case of No Direction Home I believe he mixes together the perfect combination of myth, mystery and reality. Sure there are great Dylan performances throughout the feature but they are tied together by a larger narrative which is the journey of an artist (at a particular stage in his life). Some of the highlights for me musically and otherwise were Dylan at the Newport Folk Festival where he has trouble tuning his guitar but still comes off as some sort of "folk messiah" to the folkies present ( was that scene even real?! ), Al Kooper talking about how he came up for the organ part for Like a Rolling Stone (hilarious). Dylan performing (if only snippets of, sigh…) "Masters of War," and his "Hard Rain" and the final performance of the film (Like a Rolling Stone) when Dylan summons his band (the Band) to "play it f*ck#ng loud!" in order offset the hecklers booing his electric set in England in 1966. Ironically I recently read a quote from Jim Jarmusch talking about NYC in the late 1970's, he said, "I feel so lucky. During the late 70's in New York, anything seemed possible. You could make a movie or a record and work part time, and you could find an apartment for 160 bucks a month. And the conversations were about ideas. No one was talking about money. It was pretty amazing. But looking back is dangerous. I don't like nostalgia. But, still, damn, it was fun. I'm glad I was there." Be it the early 1960's or the late 1970's perhaps the charm and "myth" of such an era inspired Dylan and company to chronicle only his "golden era" as opposed to trying to trace his entire career ( which could have proved to be less then fruitful ). Instead we get a wonderful slice of life about a great time in American History, about a great artist and put together on film by a great filmmaker. I'm not going to complain.

What is it about the movie Napoleon Dynamite that people love? What is it about the movie that people hate for that matter? The latter trend is something for a different article; this article however will focus on the LOVE. Why do fans of this movie watch it over and over and quote it incessantly? Love it or hate it Napoleon Dynamite has become what is known as a "cult movie." Only hands full of films throughout history have this type of following. The Rocky Horror Picture Show, This is Spinal Tap, and the Austin Powers films are a few that share this same type of phenomenon. All of these movies have had the type of success that could never have been planed. In the past several months Napoleon Dynamite has developed a cult following. For starters it grossed over $ 49,000,000 in theaters. For a film that was produced for an amazingly low $200,000, that is no small feat in itself. It debuted as number one in DVD and Video rentals back in December and has remained in the Top Ten for the last two months. It has gone Number one to No. eight and then returned to No. six in the last two weeks. But that's just the beginning. There are Napoleon Dynamite t-shirts and merchandise being sold online and at Hot Topic. There are Fan clubs and biog sites online and thousands of threads dedicated to the film. Millions of youths are quoting this film in the High Schools and Middle Schools throughout the US and elsewhere. One school was even reported as to having proposed to have a "liger" as its school mascot. I have to admit the first time I tried to watch this film I was a little put off. The characters seem so real and deadpan. I thought that the movie was mocking misfits. The more I watched it however I realized that the film wasn't an exploitation of "geeks" or weird people (as EW's Owen Glieberman has called it) but an affectionate celebration of the "dork" in all of us! And by the end of the film I was completely won over by Napoleon (a sort of modern day anti-hero) and the plight of his misfit friends. Jon Heder gives the performance of a lifetime as the awkward yet oddly self- assured Napoleon and Aaron Ruell is hilarious as his "chat-room" obsessed brother Kip. All of the above mentioned things are funny and entertaining but what is it about this movie that people are responding to in a "cult like" way? I have few theories. I believe the movie has an infectious and sometimes almost mesmerizing way of telling a story that most young viewers are not used to seeing in a movie. The dialog is obscure but catchy and its full deadpan sentences and phrases that get caught in viewers ear and become funnier upon hearing them repeated. The characters especially Napoleon Dynamite are the types of characters that become "gags" in themselves. Just looking at these characters is sometimes amusing. But in he context of the absurdity of this film people want to add to its humor somehow. This is unlike anything we've seen in teen movies.

If you look at most films geared toward young people these days (Dodgeball, American Pie) there is always a glossy Hollywood approach to the movie-making and humor. They are loaded with vulgarity, sophomoric pranks and good looking well known actors. Napoleon Dynamite is different. It takes it's time to deliver its offbeat punch lines. It offers the viewers a glimpse into rural America while making them laugh at its universal theme of "outcast geeks" triumphing over "the popular kids." And for once this is done with a PG rating. This is a movie with no sex, violence or profanity. You could show this film to any age group and yet it has an edge to it. The edge being the movies offbeat quality, sometimes the film makes you believe that something bad will happen and when it doesn't the scene plays out in a more innocent or funnier way then the viewer would have expected. Jared Hess shot his "geek epic" like an art film featuring little (or sometimes no) camera movement and lots of wide shots. I think this is also a part of the films appeal. Although most people just see it as unique (and unique it is) there are very few movies that have this kind of effect on an audience and a following where people are compelled to mimic its content. Jared Hess and company should be some given credit. It's only the only film I can think of that's an Independent film made by Mormons, that's an "art film" for teenagers, that was filmed in Idaho, that has a lama and a time machine, and that has a Jamiroquai and a White Stripes song in it all at the same time. It's just about the best movie ever made! So if you haven't seen Napoleon Dynamite yet you should check it out, you're missing out on a great moment in movie history!

This was such a great little movie. Peter O'Tool was perfect in what was to become one of his last great roles. I wonder why more people haven't seen this movie. I wonder why O'Tool doesn't get more interesting parts these days. This year O'Tool was just fine in "Troy" however, that wasn't a very special film. "My Favorite Year" was though. It wonderfully recreated 1954 and was filled with many touching and funny moments. For some reason this movie reminds me of some of th period Woody Allen movies from this time such as Radio Days, Purlple Rose of Ciro, ect. I just wish Woody would make another movie w/ the great O'Tool visa vie- "What's new Pussycat", but I sappose that's a pipe dream. Maybe Woody and or O'Tool read this and get an idea. God knows they both need to boost their movie hype....come on guys get this guy into a good movie before it's too late.

I'm so glad other people are discovering this movie. I didn't see a whole lot of message boards up here about most of Woody's films so I was surprised to see this message board. I also think it's my favorite. I mean it came out when I was something like 20 and I just got it. I mean Annie Hall was great but for me Hannah was right on time. I also love the way he used music in this movie, so much variety, Harry James, Bach, Cole Potter and of course the Rogers and Hart standard "Bewitched." This is easily one of my all time favorite movies and I think it's a truly great film. Who could forget Barbera Hershy and Micheal Cain meeting secretly at the Strand bookstore (was that it?) and Diane Weist snorting coke at the Punk Rock concert? I love also Woody's life - affirming moment at a random showing of "Duck Soup." Classic! And just one more thing ...when I saw this movie in 1986 the first time Woody Allen ( as the Hypocondriac ) appeared on the screen the audience began to applaud. It was amazing ....and this was a Multiplex in Long Island. Boy have things changed....has anyone even seen "Anything Else?" In any case I agree "Hannah and Her Sisters" should be on the IMBD top 250, perhaps even the top 100. So go ahead and vote and give it a 10 out of 10. I know did

Without a doubt one of the best movies of all time Amadeus is also the one movie that has it all, drama, laughs, great music, spectacle, and of coarse GREAT ACTING! Is there a better-acted, more thrilling scene in all of cinema than the one at the end between Mozart and Salieri ? F.Murray Abraham and Tom Hulse give us a tour de force that has seldom been seen in movies. Most people know the story of Amadeus so it's fruitless going into to many of the films main - plot points. It might help to note however that a lot of what is portrayed in the film is fictitious, Salieri didn't actually sit at Mozart's deathbed while he dictated the Requiem, this is fiction, but it is the stuff great dramas are made of. On the director cut version of the film Peter Shaffer explains that the ending is his favorite scene in the whole movie because it is so unlike any other Hollywood movie. Here is a climax of a film and it is basically two men composing a piece of music, no explosion, no shootout, and yet it is exciting. Of coarse the set up and the story of Salieri's mad jealousy are all part why that scene works so well. Many other details of the actual story of Mozart are also fiction yet many other parts of the story are in fact true. By combining fact and myth Peter Shaffer has created a truly great drama. This is also a movie that looks and sounds amazing. And although it evokes the 18th century perhaps more authentically than any movie this is also a film that refuses to take itself too seriously. Milos Forman is a genius for the way he brought this play to the screen. Another director may have made a dull, overly dramatic piece out of Shaffer's play. Instead he choose to make every part of the story interesting, from his "cartoon casting" of secondary roles (the Emperor Joseph and his Court), to his giving us whole Operatic Arias, to his casting of virtually unknowns ( Hulse and F.Murray are brilliant ) in the major roles, Amadeus is about as good as movies get. I love this movie, 10/10.

I just saw this last night after seeing two great concerts ( R.E.M. and Bruce Springsteen )and still after being "concerted -out" I feel that this is one of the best concert movies I've ever seen! It's right up there with "Last Waltz." I just wonder if any one else will see it? Eric Clapton was the music director and all of Georges friends were there including the surviving Beatles and some of the members of Monty Python ( plus Tom Hanks !?! ). Also Georges son Dhoni and his wife Olivia host the event. The whole thing looks and sounds great! The fact that it takes place at the Royal Albert Hall is lovely in itself. Paul and Ringo do their thing well, but it is Eric Clapton and Billy Preston that really stand out ( musically ). But ultimately the spirit of George Harrison is what it's really all about and the movie pays tribute to him in a very special way. I really do hope that this movie finds an audience because it is in a word, wonderful!

I just picked up this Dvd and I can't stop watching it. It brought back such good memories. The first time I saw this I must have been 13 and I had just become a Beatles fan. I was like "what the ...?" I then bought the soundtrack on vinyl ( which I still play ) Its just great to see all those people up there having fun, Neil Innes and Erics Idle are brilliant.

My only regret is not having run out to see this one in the movies when it came out in 1998. "Rushmore" is one of those movies that gets better upon each viewing. Wes Anderson had created a very unusual feature out of mix of genres and comes up with something that resembles "The Graduate" meets "Harold and Maude" with a little bit of the 'French New- Wave' added in for good measure. His choice in music is impeccable. Never have bands like The Faces, The Rolling Stones, Cat Stevens, and The Kinks been used more effectivly in a movie. The critical buzz on this movie may have turned some people off, and that is a shame, because after all is said and done "Rushmore" holds up better than many of the other 'critical choices' from the 90's ( i.e. American Beauty, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon ). It's basically a charming, quirky, little movie without an agenda. Bill Murrey is perfect in understated role as Max Fisher's teacher- turned- nemesis turned friend, and Jason Shwatzman could be the next Dustin Hoffman. Seeing "Rushmore" reminds me that cinema is still a fresh art-form and luckily for us the Criterion edition of "Rushmore" is one of the best Dvd's ever put out, there is so much to see on this disc and the movie looks and sound great. I highly recommend it!!!

From what the critics are saying ( 93% fresh on "Rotten Tomato's" )I thought this was going to be the best sci-fic movie since "Blade Runner"or "2001." While MR did have me entertained and guessing it's not as great as some of the critics will have you think. It's also not as bad as some of the comments on here will have you believe although the whole thing about the "pre-cogs" having no rights did strike me as a bit odd as well as some other inconsistancies in the plot but...it's only a movie and there are many things to be enjoyed in MR. It's funny and exciting while being provocative and that's saying something for a movie these days.8/10, and well worth seeing, not perfect, but good.

How can this classic not be in IMDB's 250 top ten....what's up with the voters on this data base? Many of the films on that list are questionable to say the least. Without mentioning them by name, "Some Like It Hot" towers above many of them. The perfect comedy with the perfect cast and the best director....get with it IMBD voters.

For some reason I never get tired of watching this movie.Mel Brooks first movie " The Producers" may be more original and his others may have more one liners, but there is so much to see in "Young Frankenstein." that it stands out from the rest. The great sets, the black and white photography, and the perfect comic cast make "Young Frankenstein" not only one of the funniest movies ever made but also one of the prettiest. In 1974 very few directors were shooting in black and white, Mel Brooks may have been the first to try something like this and the results are amazing...consider it was also a smash hit in 1974. Of course it is a parody, which for the rest of his career may have not have served him as well. Some may disagree, but with "Young Frankenstein" we get a little more than just a parody. It's more like an homage thats still hilarious. Theres an affection in this movie for its material thats rarely found in comedy/parody. As comedies go "Young Frankenstein" up there with the best.

It's very refreshing to see something this unusual coming out of a major studio these days.... Quirky and imaginative are two words that come to mind and in many ways this was not so different than Wes Anderson's Rushmore and Bottle Rocket. But at the same time this film has a certain compassion that his other films lacked. In any case this movie is filled with cool stuff to look and laugh at as it tells a story that seems to be about family, forgiveness. Wes Anderson has put together a great ( star stunted ) cast and pulled off the difficult task of making the best of their talent while keeping strong his fresh yet offbeat style. Many may complain that this is no Rushmore but it is still very good. One can only hope that Wes Anderson will have a job in movies for years to come.

I'm really surprised this movie didn't get a higher rating on IMDB. It's one of those movies that could easily get by someone, but for romantic comedy "Moonstruck" is really in a class by itself. It's setting and ethnic charm are things people seem to take for granted. The casting alone makes it a nearly perfect movie. Few movies in the 1980's were as good as "Moonstruck"and it's funny too. **** out of *****

The new and "re-imagined" Planet of the Apes is for the most part an extravagant exercise in style over substance. The make-up ( which is the real star) in this movie is good but somehow seems over done. Tim Burton's direction is interesting but his talent can't make up the movies spotty script. The original though dated was a far more focused movie throughout making it's twist of an ending a classic. This "Apes" also has a twist of an ending but is less effective, leaving it's audience with more of a belly laugh than anything else. Also, Marky-Mark is no Charlton Heston...and how those "humans" that speak English as well as anyone seemed a bit silly as well. In fact 'silly' may be the best way to describe "Planet of the Apes-2001." But if you want a nice light night out at the movies without too much thought, perhaps this ones for you. **1/2

The thing about this movie is that it's a small movie with an indepedent feel to it that has a Hollywood plot. It's a story you may have seen many times before in different ways. But don't let it's Rocky overtones scare you away, Billy Elliot is still very original. It touches you and it makes you laugh at the same time. Jamie Bell gives a great performance as the lower middle class small town kid who wants to be a ballet dancer against his widowed fathers wishes. The music for the film is also interesting, the director usesthe 1970's rock band "T-Rex" throughout the movie and even though it may not have been someone else's choice for a film set in the 1980's, the excellent "Cosmic Dancer" seems oddly appropriate. The films gender bending aspects are also very different from the standard Hollywood treatment hence "The Full Monty" comparison. Yet as British as this film is Billy Elliot is so charming that I think almost anyone could enjoy it, even Americans.