Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Beijing Bubbles (2005)
good potential, failed because of uninteresting subject
I found this DVD in a DVD store in China. I thought it had the potential to be real interesting - a realistic portrayal of counterculture in Beijing.
Unfortunately, it is a bad film.
The youth at the center of the film are simply boring subjects. Most of the film is spent following them around during their daily lives. Nothing interesting happens.
Occasionally they make comments the superficiality of society, materialism and what not. Nothing too profound here. Nothing that hasn't been said before.
And many of the youth are hypocritical. They think they are special, living against the grain. But the image I got is that they are very much part of the commercial culture. They also have dreams of getting rich and buying big houses.
Probably the most annoying thing about this film is that the vast majority of the dialogue is in English - both the filmmakers, Germans, and the Chinese subjects, speaking in broken English.
In a film about China, why don't they speak Chinese?
great idea and message...but execution, production not so great
I really like the idea Judge tried to convey here. He got the feel of utter crassness and stupidity down very well.
The problem is that the movie just seems kind of pulled together at the last minute. The plot is not that strong. And the ending is too conventional. In the end the movie seems to settle for too much.
Sometimes the parody becomes heavy-handed, and repetitive. He could have probed deeper.
It also suffers from problems with logic. How could a society that is so stupid produce the technology that this society has (such as the scanners and surveillance)
Time Bandits (1981)
Fabulous entertainment for all ages
i'm 20 and I just saw Time Bandits for the first time. I've now seen
almost everything Terry Gilliam has done (except Jaberwocky) and
he is def. one of my favorite directors.
Time Bandits is a beautiful piece of filmmaking. The costumes,
makeup, art direction, and cinematography are outstanding.
What's more? Against his perfect tapestry Gilliam has placed
characters and a story with heart. Don't expect the over the top
humor of Monty Python. This is much more sublte. But so
entertaining. Entirely appropriate for all ages old and young. I hope Gilliam some day gets to make his Don Quixote movie.
Lost in La Mancha (2002)
Fans of this movie: Check Out "Hearts of Darkness"
Most of what I would say about "Lost in La Mancha" has already
been said here. It is a fascinating look behind the scenes of movie
making. It is emotional and tragic. I hope someday Terry Gilliam is
able to make his movie. And I agree with another poster here that
maybe John Cleese should play Don Quixote, as a favor for his old
Monty Python pal. Or maybe Jean Rochefourt will get bettter? (He
is still alive, isn't he?)
My main point in writing this is to recommend to anyone who
enjoyed this movie to see "Hearts of Darkness" a documentary in
a very similar vein about another movie that was doomed by
budget overruns and disasters, both human and natural. That film
was "Apocalypse Now" and although it did eventually get finished,
it almost didn't. I'm sure all you movie buffs have already seen it,
but for anyone who hasn't, go rent it today. It is immensely
informative and entertaining.
The Music Man (2003)
Good production value marred by Lackluster Acting
I had high hopes for this TV adaptation of Meredith Wilson's
classic broadway show which was made into so faithful a film
adaptation in 1962.
This remake also preserves the original structure of the show, the
order of songs, the dialogue, the plot devices, etc. For that I
commend the producers. It also LOOKS GREAT. River City, Iowa
has been realized beautifully, colorfully, and packed with
townspeople. The ensemble is really just fine. Some of the minor
characters, like Zaneeta Shin and Mrs. Shin, and Mrs. Paroo and
Winthrop, are all admirable. The choreography is also great.
Unfortunately, the main actors do not live up to the quality of the
production. In fact, they bring it down and ruin it. Don't get me
wrong, I love Matthew Broderick. But he's just not right as Harold
Hill. That role should come alive and with Broderick it just falls flat.
He's not believeable. Marian's problem is that she is ugly as sin! Who cast her in this
picture? It's a mystery to me. And finally, my biggest peeve is Victor Garber as Mayor Shinn. He
RUINED this role. Now I usually respect Victor Garber. He was
great in the TV remake of Annie a few years back. But what was he
thinking? Mayor Shinn is supposed to be a comic buffoon. Garber
plays him as an authoritarian and drains all the fun out of the role.
This should have been a stellar production and I'm sorry the
producer and/or director chose to make such fatal flaws.
King of the Hill (1997)
This is not a "redneck" comedy
King of the Hill is not written for rednecks, and those who say it is
are ignorant and prejudiced. I'm from urban California and I've
never been to Texas, but the people on King of the Hill are great
people and I certainly wouldn't call them rednecks. King of the Hill
shows regular Americans in a rapidly-changing world. The Hill's
neighbors are a Laotian family and the bond that has grown
between them is really heartwarming. I don't think rednecks would
let their son date a Laotian girl. This show is about exposing
stereotypes. Give it a chance.
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
a word on the production design
I agree with the many words of praise already expressed here: the
screenplay and acting are brilliant. But I want to comment on
something that surprisingly has not been metioned yet and that is
the production design. I saw this movie for the first time in 2003. I know that it was made
in 1992 but does it really take place in 1992? It's hard to tell. It
seems like the producers want us to think we're in the 30s or 40s,
with the minimalist sets, the lighting, the music. The entire
atmosphere. Even the opening titles. Is he purposefully drawing parallels between real estate in the
1990s and earlier in the century? I guess even 1992 seems dated. Nowadays these salesmen
would have cell phones and internet connections.
Stop comparing it to GoodFellas!
Casino is an excellent film that stands on its own two feet.
GoodFellas was also an excellent film. Both are about the mob
and both star De Niro and Pesci and are directed by Scorsese and
written by Pelligi. That's about the extent of the similarities.
To quote Roger Ebert, Casino is not just concerned with its
characters but with history. This is historical fiction. This movie
takes you inside Las Vegas. This movie knows.
In the end, it may not be as appealing or popular as GoodFellas.
But it isn't fare to call it an imitation because it deals with
something completely different.
This movie is worth seeing. De Niro, as always, is flawless.
The movie and the stage musical are both different and both great
I am a big fan of musicals. I have seen dozens on Broadway and
travelling shows and acted in many regional and college theatre
productions. The stage show CHICAGO is great. I don't argue that.
What I don't understand is why purests have to criticize the movie
so much. Can't you see it for its own strengths? I love movie
musicals because they reach a wider audience. Rather than keep
people away from the stage show, as many authors have suggested this movie will, I think the popularity of this movie will
encourage MORE people to see and appreciate the stage show.
Just look at the ad in the NY Times: the stage show is capitalizing
on the success of the movie.
Now, for the movie itself, all movie adaptations are different than
the stage original. I think they pulled it off very well. The stage show
has lots of great songs that didn't make it into the movie, but the
movie also added a lot where the show is lacking, like in
contextualization and dialogue. Renee kind of bothered me here
because she had so much make up on, but then Roxie is not
supposed to be a very likeable character. That's the point of the
show. She is SUPPOSED to be untalented. Catherine on the other
hand, was fantastic. As were John C Reilly and Queen Latifah. And
Richard Gere was very impressive. I especially liked Hunak, the
Hungarian. Her death scene in the movie was much more moving
than in the musical.
And to all of you complaining about the immorality of this movie, it's
just a movie, folks! No one's really condoning murder here. Relax
and just enjoy the razzle-dazzle.
I want to recommend anyone who enjoyed this movie to see
Dancer in The Dark, starring Bjork. Another good recent movie musical that unfortunately went straight
to video because of an evil studio chairman is THE FANTASTICKS, starring Joel Grey (Amos Hart in the Broadway
revival of Chicago)
A Great Musical, Children's Classic
I saw this as a kid in the 80s and loved it and for that reason it will always remain a part of me. I was not a Care Bears fan or anything, but this movie was a lot of fun. The characters were very developed. The story was a lot of fun. The animation was decent. And the songs really stand out. Usually, the music in animated children's movies is pretty pitiful, but these songs are good! "Everything is wonderful in wonderland", "Mad about Hats", "Dont forget to use your heart", and a whole bunch of others. It's funny, it has good messages for kids, Alice is cute, and the animations is really psychedelic because this is set in *Wonderland* of course. The wizard is scary and his two assistants are hilarious. So is the Chesher Cat. See it!