Reviews

This masterfully crafted documentary takes the viewer along the entire arc of the Charles-and-Diana saga. It is edited entirely from contemporaneous archival footage, some well known, some perhaps never seen since. Because the only voices are those of the principals or of the commentators of the era, there is no supercilious voice-over, which often amounts to little more than self-important distraction. You don't need to know all the details to follow along. The result conveys an immediacy that belies the decades since the events. One of the cringiest moments is the excerpt from the BBC interview with now discredited newscaster Martin Bashir, now that we know the lies and forgeries he used fraudulently to secure that interview. Additionally, in my opinion, Charles comes across very poorly: in his own words, he reveals himself as cold, callous, insecure, and none too bright. Finally, the ruthlessness of paparazzi is well in evidence. That said, there is no overly emotional angle in favor of, or against, Diana or any other subject, leaving viewers to make up their own minds. A brilliant documentary.

Wonderful little animated short that weaves a very personal story in a scifi-fantasy setting. Parents might want to watch it themselves first to decide if it is suitable for their children, due to one theme. Do watch to the end of the credits, however.

If the filmmaker is trying to make an environmental point, it is lost and dumb in multiple ways. First, the attempt to relate the eventual conclusion to unrequited love of a girl is tenuous at best but to tie it to littering is pure nonsense: paper is biodegradable and will eventually nourish the flora of the forest. Or maybe the message is about the cell phone. Yes, that's it: "Cell Phones Kill." There you go.

This compendium might only prove that using eight directors, eight writers, and four editors produces a result that doesn't hold together very well. Some of the segments are quite atmospheric but none are scary or even chilling in the least. This is the kind of "horror" movies that you can't show your kids because they will leave the room rolling their eyes and making fun of you. Only one segment was really scary and that was due to the 1960s wallpaper.

The problem with being much anticipated is that you have to deliver, to an extent at least. This movie delivers almost nothing. Not enough real history and character involvement to deliver any interest in the "current war" that the plot hinges on. Then there is Ethan Hawkes wooden performance, except when he does a rendition of a Tears for Fears song (in character) into a microphone against an soft focus sunset backdrop. If you find you can't sit through this bore of a movie but want to catch that music video, fast forward to the 90 minute mark.

In the very first episode, a couple start their journey to adopt a child by committing a crime and compounding it with another crime to avoid the first one being reported to police. Very unappealing couple. I don't want them to get a child now. Crummy premise, crummy writing.

... for the nice aerial shots of "London", and then it's all downhill from there as an inane plot kicks in, executed by awful writing, acting, and most of all, directon and cinematography: 5-second shots with almost constant camera movement within the shots will make most viewers seasick within 15 minutes. No hope of a rescue by interesting plot twists, however, as it's entirely predictable to the end. Amateur hour film-making at its worst.

This terrible series is the perfect vehicle for Amy Adams' limited acting skills. Endless, drawn oug scenes of emotionally damaged women either whispering, whining, or secretly hating each other. "I know all about you", says one upon first meeting Adams' character, "you were 'it'... back in the day", in a back-handed compliment designed to amplify the difference in their ages. The nonstop negative personalities, mostly directed at female characters in an apparent reinforcement of the outdated and mistaken stereotype that women carry too much emotional baggage to be effective at running their own lives are sure to leave you depressed after each episode. Do not mix with alcohol.

This 10 minute short film is the personal story of the director's experience growing up in an old building on Manhattan's Lower East Side. Made a few years after he moved out (presumably to go away to college, based on the years cited, but this is never explicitly stated) at the moment his parents moved out. The narration focuses on the past "lives" of the same building, over 100+ years. The writer/director and his parents are heard, off-camera, reflecting on their experience living in that building, in the context of their time spent there representing only one chapter in the building's own successive purposes: a synagogue, a factory, artists' loft, etc. Their sensitivity to the building's prior history is particularly touching.

The film is thought-provoking (or, perhaps more accurately, thought-inducing) in that, without ever lapsing into preaching, it invites the viewer to reflect on the fact that every building in NYC has a history in itself that in many cases spans several human lifetimes. This is in contrast with the construction boom in Manhattan that so often spells the end of those historical buildings, in the unending search for more square footage.

And the fate of this particular building after the director's parent move out? I won't spoil it for you.

This is part 1 of a 2 part set, part 2 being "On the Record". I stress these to anyone who rents the DVD, as on the DVD menu, "On the Record" comes first on the menu, leading one to watch it first. While it's not critical to watch the two parts in order, it does help a bit with the flow is you do. Part 1, "Off the record", consists of a brief profile of Gould's life while at his rural retreat at Lake Simcoe, north of Toronto, a lakeside interview, and a stimulating conversation with Franz Kraemer about the music of Webern and Gould's own compositions. The remainder of this first part shows Gould in NYC picking out a piano in the Steinway basement for the recording session which is the subject of part 2, "On the Record". Overall, both parts form a fascinating picture of the early career of the great Back interpreter, a mere 4 years after his sudden rise to stardom with the release of his (first) recording of the Goldberg Variations. A must to see if you are a Gould , or Bach, fan.

those of you who saw this in the theater (cinema, for any Brits reading this), as i did, might be interested to know that i have been told that the DVD release is in single-screen format. because of this, i intend to have another look at this film, on DVD. while i found the triptych format interesting at first, it came to be a distraction when used for the film's entire length. that device is not sustainable for such a long time and detracts from the film, as the viewer becomes more focused on form than on content, IMHO. others who saw this in theaters and were disappointed by it might want to give it another try on DVD this time.

Very disappointing movie. Character development is almost non-existent, making it difficult for a viewer to care about any of them. In addition, the characters don't evolve, making their random behavior changes quite baffling: the two gay characters meet and dislike each other. Then, they like each other. Later, they hate each other. Later still, they really like each other again. Sure, lots of relationships go through those phases, but, in order to make it interesting, the characters have to evolve in at least some way to justify such radical changes in their feelings. In this movie, sadly, they do not. On top of this, most of the acting is quite stilted and the screenplay is full of unrealistic lines and dialogues, some of which make it seem more like a theatrical play captured (poorly) on film.