Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Thinking XXX (2004)
A different look at porn
This documentary offers you an interesting look at porn actors and actresses. Instead of the superficial moving flesh they normally appear to be they now had a chance to show who's the person behind the personality. Both men and women from the industry prove to be more than just sex-obsessed people. Some admit looking at sex as strictly business, others claim to enjoy it but also perform differently on camera than in private. The movie itself is centered around a photographer who became famous for his pictures of movie stars and later on even presidents. His project which is shown in this documentary is to make a book with a nude and a dressed photograph of 32 porn actors and actresses. Some poses are directly derived from famous paintings and works of art, and the photographs are works of art by themselves as well. He uses a very special camera which is quite hard to use and rather big. It's interesting to see how calmly and professionally he "manages" his subjects, especially when he tells how at first he was quite uncomfortable with nude models.
Neil Young: Heart of Gold (2006)
Do not expect a documentary
As the first genre listed on IMDb for this "movie" was Documentary i watched it expecting a documentary. As it turns out that genre is probably only referring to the first 5 or so minutes of the movie. The rest of the runtime is just a concert registration, which was a shame for me. I'm not a fan of Neil Young or his music, i just watched the movie to watch a legend talk, the same way i watched Walk The Line to broaden my horizon, even though I'm no fan of Johnny Cash.
The concert is well played and well recorded, but if you're not into Neil Young it's not very entertaining. There is hardly any show element, it only proves that he can play live just as well as in a studio.
Dan Aykroyd is no scientist and it shows
The "documentary" starts out hopeful with a more or less an objective view at UFO sightings and events around them, but as the movie progresses it becomes more and more of a pseudo-scientific documentary. The interviewer starts asking Dan all kinds of speculative questions like "what would you do if you could move back in time?". This may be acceptable for the discovery channel, but in a movie that wants to be taken seriously (and it seems it does) this completely undermines all credibility. The last line of the "interview" (i had the feeling the questions and answers were recorded separately) is something along the lines of "Thank you for this interview Dan, I really think you're one of the greatest minds of our time". How can you say that to an actor/performer, because that's how Dan describes himself in the movie as well, who has no scientific basis for his speculative stories? I found it a very disappointing documentary with way too many repeats of the same footage an way too much speculation for it to be taken seriously.