Reviews

Classic film about degenerate values. We're supposed to identify with a young man who bangs a married woman and then tries to court her daughter. Oh, and by the way, this breaks up the whole family. Ben Braddock is an alien creature who can't relate to normal people and is portrayed in this film as being on the outside looking in, but not as a victim, but as someone too good for societal norms. This film is well made but a major contributing factor to the breakdown of the fabric of society.

I had always heard of many of these bands all through my listening career of the 80's' and early 90's, but never really had a chance to have a proper listen to any of them, or, perhaps I did, but was unmoved. When I first heard Lush's De-luxe, I knew instantly that I liked this band and their sound. And that was my introduction to the "shoegazing" movement. I delightfully explored their whole back catalog.

So, over the years I tried numerous times to get into some of the other shoegazing bands covered in this documentary. And no matter how I tried, I always came up with the same conclusion; 'there is a reason none of these bands ever made it big, they all suck'.

Incorporating noise, feedback, distorted guitars etc. into rock n roll was nothing new in the 1980's, as this documentary would have you believe. The Beatles first famously used feedback from George Harrison's guitar amp at the beginning of I Feel Fine. Later The Velvet Underground fully incorporated noise into their sound and did it masterfully. In the 80's, the band that was experimenting with noise but also retaining a keen sense of musicality and songcraft was Sonic Youth, who, no surprise, have had much more success and longevity than either Cocteau Twins or My Bloody Valentine.

This documentary has a kind of amateurish, half-assed feel to it, kind of like the Beautiful Noise scene it's portraying. So my predisposition to the whole movement was pretty much reinforced while watching it. Unfortunately Lush gets only a brief bit of covarage for their contributions. At least they used one of their very beautiful compositions "For Love" over the beginning of the Girls and Guys segment.

In conclusion, unless you're a real die hard fan of this scene or any of the bands covered, there is very little reason to watch this show. Even if you are a fan, they cover so many acts in such a short amount of time, you can't possibly sink your teeth into any of them to get a good handle on their music or their message. Do yourself a favour and buy a Lush album instead.

Eli is a psychological attack on Christianity and goodness. This movie is probably meant to make you think Satan is cool. In that case, most people reading my review will probably disregard it. But there it is.

As far as a piece of entertainment goes, it's a decent story, with a few good scares. Nothing special.

Of course there are corrupt cops, but this film would have you believe that most cops are indifferent or incompetent at best; and that many of them are hardhearted or evil. Meanwhile,the only cop with a conscience (Paul Newman), is stuck being a hapless beat cop for far too long because he refuses to play along with the system of corruption. As for the predominantly Puerto Rican citizenry of The Bronx, they are all portrayed as innocents, or they only commit crimes or do bad things because society is keeping them down. I have heard that this film received a lot of criticism because it supposedly shows Puerto Ricans in a bad light. However, I think they are probably upset because it portrays most of them as somewhat naive and petty, as opposed to being bad people. Even the one truly bad criminal, it could be interpreted, is simply a crazy drug addict, as opposed to being truly evil. All the characters, especially the cops, are one dimensional so as to further the meandering plot. Worthwhile viewing only as a time capsule of the late 70's/early 80's New York, which I love to watch.

Amazingly, this was rated #1 on one particular website's list of the best British films of all time. For me it was an excruciating, two hour, nonsensical exercise in agitation. Meandering plot (who even knows what the hell was going on?); very little plot exposition, contrasted with an overabundance of unimportant visual information (eg. extended nudity and love making scene between the two leads). Every character was annoying and I wanted to bail on this piece of garbage at the midway point, but I generally always finish a movie, even if I hate it. However, there is one way that this film can be useful, If you are unsure about someone in your personal life, see if they like this film or not. If they like it, then you know they are a total a**hole.

I consider myself a cineaste, and try to see as many old films as I can. I have especially been interested in film-noir of the 40s and 50s. However, I am starting to think that I like the style, tropes and ideas of classic noir more than the actual pictures. "Hunter" is an example of a really bad movie by today's standards. Apparently it was universally panned at the time of it's release, but gained stature and notoriety over the years, particularly for Robert Mitchum's ominous turn as dangerous con man. The acting is okay. I think the kids are just as good as Mitchum quite frankly.

Although I understood the basic underlying plot, a lot of times I was wondering what the hell was going. I didn't always understood characters motivations or the meaning of various plot devices. So being confounded for most of the film, while sneering at many cheesy aspects, I can not say that I found this a rewarding cinematic experience.

It seems that nerds love every sci-fi/fantasy movie ever made and have no standards. To read the reviews you would think this movie ranks right up there with Alien(s). It doesn't. It's crap. Surprisingly poor acting from a decent cast, I guess you can only do so much with a mediocre script and clumsy direction. I should have known from the IMDB rating that this would not be that good, but oh the reviewers. Shame on me for being fooled twice, three times, etc.

Another boring, self-indulgent exploitation fest from Quentin Tarantino, Hollywood's obnoxious wunderkind film brat. The reason I gave this a medium grade is for the great acting, cinematography, production design and score. The problems with this film are not the individual elements, but are in fact the the problems for which its director is solely responsible. Tarantino's script (which as usual, takes liberties with gross use/overuse of the N word), pacing and vision, make this tripe less than the sum of its parts. Death to Quentin Tarantino.

This is essentially Brokeback Mountain set in rural England, with a low budget and shot in semi-documentary style which is supposed to add more gravitas to the subject, I guess. But the story and tropes are so familiar and hackneyed it is quite jarring. Ultimately this film has no new take on the subject. It offers no new message or insights. All the English characters are one-dimensional, sullen, miserable sods. Only the Romanian guy is portrayed in any sort of favorable light. Not horrible, but certainly a waste of time.

This movie is a mess. I have disagreed with the Academy's choice for best picture in the past because they did not select my favorite film in any particular year, but ultimately I could always recognize that the film that beat mine was certainly a film of great merit. The Shape of Water breaks that mold. Sure, the production design was spot on, the cinematography beautiful (most of the time), and the cast is stellar. But my goodness, what a horrible plot for an essentially boring story that centered around an oddball assortment of one-note characters.

This movie kinda feels like a kids movie, but made for adults with the obligatory sex, violence and politics. I watched the entirety of the 2 hour run time because I like to view every best picture nominee in order to properly judge which of the films was more deserving than the others. But it took nearly 7 hours to do so, because I kept pausing it to do more pressing things like picking my nose.

I saw this when it came out, and liked the hip aspects of it. I saw it again with a girlfriend and she was angered that I took her to see something so awful. I have watched it again recently and realized this is one of the most depressing films I have ever seen. You can't glamorize heroin, thank god.

Okay, there must be two types of Star Wars fans who see the universe completely differently. First, there are the children of the original trilogy generation, which includes myself, whom adore Star Wars as a keystone of our early development; as penetrating as any religion, if not more so. I saw all the original movies in the theater, multiple times. I played Star Wars in the schoolyard, and had the compulsory toys, games, accessories etc. Star Wars was a part of me and my friends daily conversation. That being said, we never read a Star Wars book or comic, nor did we dress up in goofy SW uniforms (except at Halloween). We balanced our childhood pop culture fantasies with healthy sports and activities. To us, Star Wars and the NFL were both cool. There were very few geeks that I was aware of. We knew immediately that Return of the Jedi was only half as good as the first two, mainly because the story really betrayed Lucas' need to pander to kiddies. I was 13 by the time of ROJI, and I needed my Star Wars universe to continue to get darker and more intense, not more sickly sweet.

Now, enter the second set. Geeks. I hate you. You have hijacked and ruined that part of my childhood Star Wars memories as described above. You have immersed yourself in fandom in a way that has lit up dollar signs for George Lucas, Disney and every other big corporation that has had a hand in reviving Star Wars for the geeks. You actually liked the prequels (or parts of them) as well as these last two installments. You read all the fan novels, graphic novels and whatever else; and you have PhDs in the Star Wars universe. Good for you. Just because you know about all these new characters and story lines doesn't make you a real Star Wars fan. You're just geeks if you don't know a good movie, Star Wars or otherwise. And geeks generally don't know good movie storytelling, you are too hung up on the video game and graphic components.

I watched a review by some geek group on youtube who praised Rogue One as being really good. It sucked. There is so much going on on the screen at any one time it becomes distracting, characters are underdeveloped, score is overused, and the whole thing is edited together at breakneck speed. And this is nothing new. This is what the video game/comic book/geek masses consume endlessly. No wonder the studios keep serving up the same old drivel. Watch Empire Strikes Back again. Note how much care is taken to allow characters to fill space and time. The pace is pitch perfect, and there are beautiful moments of quiet (not silence) that allow you some breathing room to absorb the story. Geeks, all I can say is, I hope you're mass influence is on the downswing. Oh, and you owe me my money back.

I was very excited to see this movie, especially after reading some very promising critics' reviews (I know, my bad) that this was something of a cinematic event approaching the level of Stanley Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey.

While Gravity does behold some very good technical achievements, it falls to earth with a silent deafening thud in terms of story and especially in the script. Like so many other hyped up visual cinematic spectaculars of the computer age, the star of the show is the effects, while it's stars, through no fault of their own, are left to try to lift a simple, rather boring narrative into the stratosphere to solidify the drama of the spectacle.

The film looks clean and beautiful as one would envision if jettisoned into outer space, and the 3D effects are truly in your face. However, despite a valiant performance from Sandra Bullock, the drama often gets convoluted, and the dialogue is dotted with many a cringeworthy line.

All I can say is, before you spend the extra bucks on seeing Gravity in 3D and AVX, don't say I didn't warn you.

Hated this bogus piece of pretentious crap. The average teens in this movie were completely unrealistic in terms of their musical and cultural knowledge and awareness. They didn't even play anything that was popular in 1987. Rock me Amadeus would have been overplayed in 1984. But at that time it would have been dead in the water by 1987.

No kid had a pacer in 1987. I was 17 in 1987 and though I'm appreciative of Brian Eno, The Replacements and Big Star now, at that time I had never heard of any of them, and certainly knew no one who would have that as their record collection with a slacker loser going to University (a character who never existed at that time) complimenting a hair-twitching slut on it.

There are people who have seen this movie that have not been stoked by it (see some user comments). Personally I can't understand this. I know that there are people who have different tastes, and maybe some younger viewers will not be able to relate to it, or appreciate it. However, at the risk of sounding like a dick, I can confidently say that those are people I would not want to know anyways. This is a film that does what great films are supposed to do; that is to transcend our daily lives and bring us joy. There are a few films that can be called masterpieces because all the different film elements that are brought together have a unique quality and vision and the final result is something more special than the sum of the elements themselves. In a nutshell, this is a simple story about a young Italian Brooklyn man, Tony Manero, from humble roots with a gift for dancing who dreams of something better against all odds. He escapes from it all out on the dance floor, basking in the glow of the disco ball, and the frivolous, moving dance music. He meets another young woman at the danceclub, Stephanie Modano, played by an underrated Karen Lynn-Gorney, who is equal to him in dance ability, and, more importantly, in desiring a better life. The two struggle together, and against each other, in their pursuit of winning a dance contest that may spur on their dreams.

A simple story yes. One you've seen before yes. But after that, there is no other film that can touch it. John Travolta, as Tony, was in his prime, giving a performance that is so likeable because he is so normal. Who can't relate to a character who is so honest, so cool, so goofy, so conflicted; who has talent but doesn't get recognized by the people who should recognize him, like his family, only by his friends whom he knows deep down are all creeps? This is all of. us!

The soundtrack features some of the best disco music ever made, in terms of making you feel joyous, and impervious to the world's problems. Mostly contributed by The Bee Gees, as well as others, it is the essential element that makes the whole thing work.

John Badham's direction is even; giving the audience plenty of music and show stopping musical bits, yet unafraid to lure you back to the grim reality of what our hero is always up against. But it's never heavy handed. The story is equal parts dramatic, comedic, exhilirating, and pensive, and moves along just as rhythmically as the music.

In the end, literally as well as figuratively, Tony is more alone and unsure than ever in his ever changing world. And so it makes sense that he reaches out to Stephanie for love and support; someone that has at least a little understanding of who he really is, even if they can't be lovers. Simple, realistic, beautiful. The 70's was the true golden age of American cinema. It was the era of the auteur. Great minds like Scorsese, Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg, Badham, and so forth had for a decade or so, the ability to make truly visionary films; in the sense that they had a lot of creative power to express themselves devoid of studio pressure, political correctness, marketing tie-ins, and big budget, sensory offending, special effects. They laid it on the line. And we get to enjoy it for eternity.

Attention younger viewers, don't let the distorted lingering stereotype fool you. This isn't a "cheesy film" with John Travolta dancing like a clown to music that "sucks". It is as good a film as you'll see, if you can allow yourself to appreciate it as a real film. Disco music was once cutting edge before it "sucked". John Travolta was actually a good dancer and actor, and the story really does have depth.

There are people who have seen this movie that have not been stoked by it (see some user comments). Personally I can't understand this. I know that there are people who have different tastes, and maybe some younger viewers will not be able to relate to it, or appreciate it. However, at the risk of sounding like a dick, I can confidently say that those are people I would not want to know anyways. This is a film that does what great films are supposed to do; that is to transcend our daily lives and bring us joy. There are a few films that can be called masterpieces because all the different film elements that are brought together have a unique quality and vision and the final result is something more special than the sum of the elements themselves. In a nutshell, this is a simple story about a young Italian Brooklyn man, Tony Manero, from humble roots with a gift for dancing who dreams of something better against all odds. He escapes from it all out on the dance floor, basking in the glow of the disco ball, and the frivolous, moving dance music. He meets another young woman at the danceclub, Stephanie Modano, played by an underrated Karen Lynn-Gorney, who is equal to him in dance ability, and, more importantly, in desiring a better life. The two struggle together, and against each other, in their pursuit of winning a dance contest that may spur on their dreams.

A simple story yes. One you've seen before yes. But after that, there is no other film that can touch it. John Travolta, as Tony, was in his prime, giving a performance that is so likeable because he is so normal. Who can't relate to a character who is so honest, so cool, so goofy, so conflicted; who has talent but doesn't get recognized by the people who should recognize him, like his family, only by his friends whom he knows deep down are all creeps? This is all of us!

The soundtrack features some of the best disco music ever made, in terms of making you feel joyous, and impervious to the world's problems. Mostly contributed by The Bee Gees, as well as others, it is the essential element that makes the whole thing work.

John Badham's direction is even; giving the audience plenty of music and show stopping musical bits, yet unafraid to lure you back to the grim reality of what our hero is always up against. But it's never heavy handed. The story is equal parts dramatic, comedic, exhilirating, and pensive, and moves along just as rhythmically as the music.

In the end, literally as well as figuratively, Tony is more alone and unsure than ever in his ever changing world. And so it makes sense that he reaches out to Stephanie for love and support; someone that has at least a little understanding of who he really is, even if they can't be lovers. Simple, realistic, beautiful. The 70's was the true golden age of American cinema. It was the era of the auteur. Great minds like Scorsese, Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg, Badham, and so forth had for a decade or so, the ability to make truly visionary films; in the sense that they had a lot of creative power to express themselves devoid of studio pressure, political correctness, marketing tie-ins, and big budget, sensory offending, special effects. They laid it on the line. And we get to enjoy it for eternity.

Attention younger viewers, don't let the distorted lingering stereotype fool you. This isn't a "cheesy film" with John Travolta dancing like a clown to music that "sucks". It is as good a film as you'll see, if you can allow yourself to appreciate it as a real film. Disco music was once cutting edge before it "sucked". John Travolta was actually a good dancer and actor, and the story really does have depth.