Reviews

This is a well-meaning and impressive low-budget film of historical importance. The first half shows the deplorable state of the penal system in the United States in the 1930s. Then the second half of the movie tries to show how conditions could be improved. But the sad thing about watching the film today is that the first half is TRUE. It was true in 1939 and it's still true now, in 2022. (If anything, they downplayed how awful things really were, and are.) The second half, however, is FALSE. No significant reforms were ever made. The system is just as bad today as it was then, or even worse. :(

Pretty bad. It feels much more like a computer game than a movie. So many obviously faked CGI effects along with overly simplistic, dumbed-down storytelling. For anyone who cares about film, or who really knows prehistory, it's a waste of time.

Wow. I just saw this film for the first time. Totally stunning.

Only back in the Pre-Code era - not even today when we're supposedly so enlightened - could a movie *accurately* depict what actually happens far too often between men and women, between predators and their prey.

Bravo as well for the finale, not a conventional Hollywood "happy ending" at all, but one more solid and shocking confirmation of the dead end deal for so many women in our society. This movie may not always be pleasant to watch, but it's a worthy slap in the face, just like the one Loretta Young gave to Regis Toomey.

Writer-producer-director Deirdre Allen Timmons examines the classic art of burlesque -- "strip-tease" as opposed to "stripping" -- in this interesting, sometimes funny, and occasionally poignant documentary. Ten ordinary women in the Seattle area, ranging in age from early 20s to early 50s, take a six-week course in taking off their clothes in front of an audience as a way to boost their self-esteem and strengthen their sexual confidence.

As a movie, it's nothing extraordinary -- a conventional, even bland, documentary approach is used -- but the subject matter itself offers something unusual. And more important, the director manages to give us a look inside the psyches of a few of the students who on the surface mostly appear to be "ordinary" people. Why would they want to get up on stage in sexy costumes, gyrate to music, and then show off their not-necessarily-slim bodies?

That's the fascination of this film: the question of why they do it and what they gain. Through interviews with class instructor Miss Indigo Blue, her assistant The Shanghai Pearl, and all of the students, Timmons helps us see that accepting one's body as a sexual object and taking ownership of its use in that context can be truly empowering. In the end, her movie exposes more than just skin; it exposes humanity.

China is often depicted by the traditional media as a nation with a booming economy, a thriving middle class, and an unlimited future. We're led to expect that it soon will become the world's unchallenged economic and geopolitical superpower.

But there is another side to that narrative, a story of how the other half lives, those many millions who are caught up in the turbulent backwash of industrial and economic growth. This masterpiece of a movie tells a small but compelling part of that story, as seen through the eyes of a young woman trying to make her way through the maze of societal dead ends that confront her at every turn. Trying to find a decent job, dealing with a troubled boyfriend, fending off groping or overbearing suitors, or negotiating a hilly terrain of generational differences with her nagging mother, she does her best, as we all must do in our own circumstances.

Using natural lighting, ambient sounds, and a jerky or sometimes stationary hand-held camera, the director skillfully mixes a blend of professional and nonprofessional actors into a stunning triumph. Sometimes portrayed as quasi-documentary or shot as cinéma vérité, and at other times as a more straightforward low-budget melodrama, this highly unconventional effort shouldn't work, and yet somehow it does. Stick with the strange sound track and deliberately murky photography long enough, and eventually the power of what you're witnessing, in totality, may overwhelm you.

I had the experience of being completely consumed by this film, the essence of what Roger Ebert calls a "suspension of disbelief." I was in southern China -- Szechuan -- breathing polluted air, stifled by oppressive humidity, worn down by an incompetent strangling bureaucracy. I struggled, as our heroine struggled, to find a way out, to escape the dismal dead end that the other half must face each and every day of their lives. For me, of course, escape was as near as my theater exit. For her and for them, it's not so easy.

Excellent early talking picture with loads of "pre-code" racy language and situations, scandalous behavior, and a genuinely touching romance between Charles Farrell and Marian Nixon. Don't be fooled into thinking this is just another light romance. The terrific dialog is often surprisingly frank, especially when Minna Gombell -- in the performance of her life -- tells her daughter things no child should hear from a parent. Even 75 years later, that scene is genuinely shocking. All the parts are well acted, but a particular standout is Josephine Hull; her scenes with William Collier Sr. are absolutely hilarious. Direction by Frank Borzage is, as usual, nearly flawless. This film really should be much better known.

This is a great film in many different ways...perhaps the most important is that it introduces Western audiences to the remarkable, tragic story of Aung San Suu Kyi and her fight for freedom and democracy. Wonderful acting, gorgeous cinematography, breathtaking action and suspense: "Beyond Rangoon" has everything. I've seen this movie several times over the last ten years and each time it means more to me. Not everyone will like it (hence the relatively low rating on IMDb), but that's because it is not conventional Hollywood dumbtainment; rather, it challenges the viewer on several levels. I've never watched it without sobbing at the end and promising to live a more meaningful life.

Annika (Liv Tyler) doesn't like the photo of a dour Ernest Hemingway that Jim (Casey Affleck) has on his bedroom wall. Jim says it's real life. She says it's depressing, and he replies, "Isn't that the same thing?" It's a funny line, but it's also much more. It describes the heart of this terrific new picture directed by Steve Buscemi. He's made a wonderful "small" film about the sadness and disappointment that is so much a part of life, and about how we each must choose to respond. Do we wallow in despair, or can we find hope, joy, and purpose? In "Lonesome Jim," we meet a range of genuine people who exhibit a range of choices -- sometimes conflicting responses within the same character. The casting is superb, and between Buscemi's measured pace and first-time screenwriter Jim Strouse's unpredictable (and semi-autobiographical) story turns, we get to know and care about these people...even though they each exhibit traits we definitely do not like. That's real life.

Back in the 1950's, many science fiction writers were apparently fascinated with the idea that paranormal studies could someday lead to the discovery of provable, replicable, and even manageable extra sensory perception (ESP) in humans. Most of what these writers wrote was rubbish. Some of it was brilliant. The writing of Philip K. Dick generally belongs in the latter category.

The new movie ''Minority Report'', based on a P. K. Dick short story of the same title, concerns the harnessing of human precognition as a tool to prevent murders. As a film, it's only fair - a disappointment, considering that Steven Spielberg directed. I went to the theater hoping that Mr. Spielberg would show due respect for the Science in SF. The basic story, naturally, has considerable interest, and when written it featured state of the art scientific extrapolation; the execution of the movie, sad to say, suffers considerably from obvious appeals to the lowest common denominator. ''Minority Report'' is Dick dumbed down.

In terms of pure film criticism, it's easy to lament a complete lack of character development, a ridiculously stereotyped and predictable villain and gratuitously flashy action pieces, not to mention clunky fist fights and stupid cops that seem to come from a different movie altogether. But as a lifelong devotee of great science fiction, my major objection to ''Minority Report'' is its wildly uneven depiction of the future. Granted, many film-goers might not notice or care, but for me, the little details really stick out: things like cell phones and hypodermic needles that will clearly be out of date in five years, let alone fifty.

Of course, given today's extremely rapid - and rapidly accelerating - pace of scientific discovery and technological development, it may not be possible to present a depiction of our world fifty years hence with any credibility. Indeed, it leads one to wonder: If the 1950's SF fascination with ESP seems quaint to us today, which science fiction fads of our time will be looked upon as anachronistic by our grandchildren?

For my money, the closest any filmmaker has come to capturing the flavor - if not the exact look - of the potential human future was way back in 1968. Stanley Kubrick's ''2001: A Space Odyssey'', made with considerable input from Arthur C. Clarke, is still the best of them all. My advice to Mr. Spielberg, if he's listening, is to pay more attention to period detail and less to fight sequences; you may not please the trailer park crowd, but your film could have far greater impact and more lasting appeal.