Reviews written by registered user
|12 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'm only giving this movie 3 stars because I basically like the 3 stars that were in it and enjoyed their performances...from the mild but REALLY "Kristy McNichol" Kristy McNichol performance...to the emotion-on-queue Paul Winfield one...to the UNDER-cast, almost anachronistic Burl Ives one. The rest of the movie...the entire PREMISE of it...garbage. And let me tell ya why! First off...it's real simple: bad dog (of any color or race!) bites someone to the point it draws blood...dead dog. Simple...end of day...end of story. Yet in THIS movie the dog has some kind of 'white privilege'! It gets away with biting people in a bloody frenzy...to outright mauling a man to death...IN A CHURCH...and they STILL want to reform this maniac dog...he's REALLY f'd in the head! All of that is enough to sink this movie into a ridiculous, farcical mound...but it fails on another level. It TOTALLY insults black people and makes them look like completely appeasing, happenstance inconsequential entities that just HAPPEN to exist in a bilaterally-symmetrical world...meaningless. The dog attacks and kills one (1) black man (no one sees this, mind you...OK...understandable)...fine, I get it so far (other than Kristy's bland acting...apparently presented to us in this film off the back of the ratings of 'Family'...or 'Little Darlings' happening to do well??). But black person attacked number two (2)...in plain sight of MANY people...blood drawn from mangled back and, later revealed, arm of a young, female (though black...that nullifies any other descriptor/characteristic) actress...and black person attacked number three (3) in plain sight of the dynamic trio of McNichol, Winfield and Ives?? I mean...DEAD dog!! HOW is this animal STILL alive?? Now attacked black being number four (4)...dead number two (2)...is a DOOZIE!! WHY, you ask? Because attacked/dead black person number 4/2...is killed IN A CHURCH!! This event (apparent aftermath) was also witnessed by someone...the person compelled and COMMITTED to curing the white dog (Winfield). Now I come to the main part of why and how this movie was pathetic and an insult to black people. The head of the now criminal group that allowed the dog to live was Paul Winfield (with Ives and McNichol complicit in a clandestine cabal...knowing FULL well what they were doing...while dining on savory lamb chops)...the black man who saw, with his own eyes, attacked/dead black person number 4/2 viciously killed by this dog to the point where ole' faithful n' emotional Winfield was able to shed a tear...from BOTH eyes...yet STILL wanted to cure this animal...ostensibly to prevent such an animal from existing again. PLEASE tell me how one could ever prevent white dogs or black dogs from existing...and WHY would we ever want to "cure" such an animal that has MURDERED people?? Yet Mr. Winfield's and Mr. Ives's and Ms. McNichol's characters (though, credit to her, McNichol's character FINALLY realized the dog needed a bullet after black man number 4/2) STILL...STILL want to cure this beast (McNichol, seemingly coerced, may get a lesser sentence when the real world swings around). The message I got from this movie...is not ONLY do black lives NOT matter...but they apparently just disappear after they die in this movie (when not gleeful they have actor's guild insurance...oh...no problem with the gashes on the back seemingly requiring stitches and a hospital stay where several bouquets of flowers have been delivered...though this, black person attacked number two (2) WAS under the impression the dog had been "gotten rid of"...which to me would have inferred a final trip to the pound). Black man dies in a fiery collision with a paint store after being chewed driving and screaming by a racist, paratroop-jumping attack dog...knowing when to bail EXACTLY at the right time. Black man gets mauled to death in a church...dog gets cheeseburger. Um...one question...WHERE ARE THE DETECTIVES??? The movie TOTALLY ignores this and makes it look like these black men that were murdered in such dramatic fashions and in such odd, highly-notable settings (a church and a blown-up paint store) were totally expendable, unimportant phenomena...just moving creatures that happen to have two arms and two legs and a head. And Winfield's character MUST have actually tampered with evidence at a crime scene and moved the dead, black body from the church...ALL to rehabilitate a poor canine traumatized by a white supremacist as a puppy. Um...DEAD DOG! So Winfield is basically accessory to a murder (remember...the dog should have LONG SINCE been dead when it escaped from his care and murdered yet another person...Winfield MUST have later cleaned up...but WHERE did he take the body? Oh, I forgot...dead, black bodies just disappear in this movie/movie's world!)...and, btw, what was this a ghost town...nobody on the street but one black man in a business suit (doing what??) who runs in a church with no parishioners or pastor? Crazy. Well...long story short we cure the dog now. Only one problem...he's Damien Omen K-9 now. He doesn't know who NOT to attack...and is FINALLY killed by black man/Winfield...but ONLY when he (crazy dog was never even given a name...maybe THAT'S why he was wacko) attacks white man/Ives. Black man degraded throughout the entire movie...but STILL loyal enough to protect white man. Where have we seen THIS narrative before? This movie was just SO wrong on SO many levels. I saw it as a child and didn't realize the nonsense I was watching. It just couldn't have been made better because the ENTIRE premise of trying to save a murderous dog to prevent one from ever existing again (an impossibility) just makes no sense in ANY dimension...MAYBE one where time goes backward...whereby the dog could have been trained in the future not to kill the people it did/does/would have in the past...WHATEVER...but...not like this (in my female 'Matrix' victim's voice)...not like this. Oh and I would LOVE to see a 'White Dog II'...where they start to investigate the murders! Winfield's character better PRAY they didn't/don't have luminol back then!! ALL three of you are going to JAIL!! Dead Movie!
I'm giving this movie a high/er mark because it is VERY unique! In fact I'd give it higher than an 8, but everything MUST have a flaw...the '8' is actually like a '10'...or '11' on an amplifier...or "ludicrous speed", heh heh! Billy Dee's character is a VERY confident, effective yet crooked cop. Imagine that...a character like that...in 1974! He REALLY is the star of the movie and takes no shorts! But, surprisingly, he also prevails in the end! Amazing! It would seem that, in those times especially, white audiences would have wanted to see this black character fall in the end. He's a bad guy...who prevails in the end! Not even white characters did this often back then! Billy is VERY smooth in this movie...a testament to how big a star he was/IS...and I'm CERTAIN this role helped him Land the 'Lando' character a relative few years later...because, again, it is such a RARE character...to even have existed in movie history...and, I can't emphasize enough, at THAT time in our, American history! You get the feeling this movie slipped though the cracks to even be MADE...much like 'The Spook Who Sat by the Door'...which came out the same year...both probably receiving the same, shelved fate at the box office...BECAUSE they were such anomalies...with themes that understandably made white America...unsettled, to say the least. And a nod to Vic Morrow's character...HORRIBLE how this GREAT actor died in real life. He, too, was VERY good in this movie...and pretty much anything, Like Williams, you will ever see him in. Well...it's about to come on (Bounce TV, 1:00 AM, 6/28/15...I WAS here!)...I'm going to watch it for a second time now...maybe with an amendment or two later (another post if compelled/allowed?). Be well movie enthusiasts! THIS one...is a rare gem! Update! 3:00 AM...just watched again. Surprised I remembered this movie so well and stand by my above review! Correction, however...'The Spook Who Sat By the Door' came out in '73...the same year as 'Soylent Green'...maybe I'll do reviews on those...2 of my favorites of ALL time...so simple reviews WON'T be as easy!
To me this movie is one of those romp types of films where you can almost feel that you are gleaning an actual glimmer of what the times it was set in were actually like. Beyond hearing phrases like "marble hat" and "wooden suit"...which immediately reminded me of "Treasure of the Sierra Madre"...where Bogart's character warned he would "let it out of you in little round holes" (reminiscent of the gunfighter saying "you'll be pushin' up daisies"!)...I really liked the ambiance of this movie...the barren gloominess of the snow and the sereneness of it all...with a backdrop of unpredictable terror provided by the/a treacherous behemoth (that ALWAYS must be dealt with) personified by the unpredictable buffalo...that was actually like a fleeting, supporting character in the grand scheme of the story. But the MAIN thing I liked (in addition to appearances by favorites like Stuart Whitman, Jack Warden, John Carradine and Will Sampson) is how it reminded me of the HARD men of the past! How they MUST have been SO rugged and resourceful. I like...no I LOVE...to escape this...OUR time of the meterosexual and the politically correct, SOFT men and people of today! Watching this movie (and choice, timeless ones from the 70s and earlier...as the 80s brought an irreversible tinge of hazy pseudo to EVERYTHING!) took me back to when men were MEN!! I am, quite frankly, disgusted by what we have become in this society. Thank God I can see a movie like this and not only feel a bit of nostalgia from when I was growing up as a starry-eyed, young kid (yes, I saw this movie a LONG time ago and always liked it)...but I can get a decided feel (especially watching old westerns) of/for what REAL men were like in our country's past...HARD men like Wild Bill Hickok and Crazy Horse...men of the frontier! The ghost-like screenplay/music (especially in the ending credits) mixed with these legendary subjects will always be alluring for grudgingly- sentimental and romantic fellows like me.
No disrespect to the late Peter Jennings, but he lost a TON of credibility with this special (I am now watching, saw when it first came out...and am always compelled to watch over and over again when it airs because it is such a grotesquely-perverted piece of propaganda that it defies belief that it would have even originally aired or is STILL airing to this day!). Many of the other reviews here reveal my same sentiment, but don't really address WHY Jennings would have been a part of this farce. And anyone who doesn't/can't put one and one together to realize an entry wound would/will be smaller than an exit wound can be convinced...well...that an elephant can hang from a cliff by a daisy. But those of us who USE our brains...are insulted when we're expected to believe that "back and to the left" could result from anything BUT a forward head shot. Not only did this ridiculous documentary try to convince us that the "magic bullet" was REALLY magic (a direct spit in the face...front and center...to anyone with even an ounce of deductive reasoning can see would be an IMPOSSIBILITY)...but it also tried to convince us, as stated above, that a rear shot can cause a head to jerk backwards!! In what alternate universe?? I would be sooner convinced of that elephant hanging from a cliff! NOW...back to WHY Jennings would be a part of this farce...this disgusting ruse...after ALL this time?? My main guess is because the elites LOVE to play games...even TIMELESS ones on us simpletons...the REAL skulls and bones at the bottom of the world hierarchy/pyramid structure. These are propaganda, misinformation, population control exercises and games that are titillation for them. Again, no disrespect to a dead man who can no longer defend his legacy, character or integrity (Mr. Jennings)...but I propose that he was DEFINITELY a tool of the elites and their perennial propaganda/misinformation/mind-control games! If they can convince us that LHO was the lone assassin...even now...almost 50 YEARS after the fact...well hell...they can convince us of ANYTHING...even 9-11! I will close with the nail that will bond my entire supposition together! And that is that Peter Jennings was a member of the Bilderberg group...that "pure and wonderful" group of elites that "care so much" about the world population that they would (clandestinely...but that means nothing...yeah right!) get together and make S'Mores and only DECIDE THE FATE OF ALL THE WORLD'S SERFS!! So just put two and two together! Believe me you'll get some semblances of FOUR every time!!
Sometimes you watch an actor and wonder WHY they weren't bigger. Yes, Elliott Gould was/is a significant (I was going to say "big") star, but after watching this movie one has to ask themselves why he wasn't a "BIG" star. This movie had me from the beginning as this totally unique and irreverently-funny character jumped off the screen. The fact that this guy cared so much about his cat showed you the type of guy he really was. The fact that he switch the cans so the cat wouldn't know the tuna wasn't its favorite cemented the believability and the likability of the character...one that stands out considering ALL the characters I've ever seen. And when he turns his finger-printing into a Minstrel comparison during his impromptu jail stint - I was floored by the comedy of the whole thing and thought to myself "how in the world were movies this funny and clever in 1973"? I will forever love Gould and continually be convinced there are MANY gems out there to be found...as I am also convinced that NOBODY, unfortunately or otherwise...from music to movies, does it as good as they used to!!
You know the Dos Equis commercials with "the most interesting man alive"? You KNOW he's not the most interesting man alive, but the comic genius, style and humor of the one-liners force you to engage the possibility of A most interesting man. "Brother" is literally the worst movie I have ever watched! It is worse than a college film or short made by a child. It was SO hard to watch, but I was simply amazed that Omar Epps would be in such a horrible film...but now understand how his career went down the shoot. This movie made him look like (or revealed him to be) a HORRIBLE actor. I had never thought he was great before, but this was just disgraceful. This movie actually caused me pain to watch. It was like one of those rags to riches stories...but you just don't have any idea of HOW everybody got to the riches...or, more importantly, WHY???? And for you people (those) who gave this movie a 10 - did the filmmaker pay you to join this website and vote 10s??? HOW could ANYONE (even a mentally retarded or highly-challenged individual) vote beyond a 2?? It actually had potential (concept/story-wise), but was TOTALLY unbelievable! And the acting!?! MY GOD!!! The acting was just like vomit ingested...and vomited AGAIN!!!
This show is simply superlative. It gets better and better each episode, but became epic after the episode "Whore". It was great before that episode, but became immortal after and has just been getting better and better. The acting is very good, but John Hannah's "Batiatus" is quite a sight to behold and he will SURELY gain accolades and rewards from it. He is the star though Andy Whitfield's "Spartacus" (a well enough actor) has the titular honor. Other stand-out acting is done by Manu Bennett's "Crixus", Nick Tarabay as "Ashur"...and Jai Courtney WAS great as "Varro" (before being unfortunately killed-off in "Party Favors"). Lucy Lawless is very good as "Lucretia"...and Viva Bianca is truly believable as the vile but seductive "Llithyia". But, again, the true titan here is John Hannah. He is the glue that fills any and all gaps in this show...IF there are any to be found. I congratulate him on both finding and playing this role of a lifetime in a show that is simply stupendous.
Of course you shouldn't expect Meryl Streep and Al Pacino acting performances here...IT'S A MOVIE ABOUT CARS AND RACING! I, unlike everyone else here, really liked this movie. The ballers were big...betting $1 Million dollars that a man could travel from LA to Vegas in an hour and a half (by Mercedes McClaren and night vision...brilliant!)...to a $100 Million dollar mega race. It was very fun and had a good pace and an accidental storyline that sufficed. The standout character was Angus Macfadyen(Michael), who created a totally believable, scumbag, money launderer (who happened to also be a whacked- out vegan/existentialist megalomaniac bond villain)...and so convincingly did this within the plastic framework of this, OK, "bubble- gum" movie. But what's wrong with bubble gum? Again, this isn't 'Sophie's Choice' or 'Godfather II'. Another movie I LOVED in this genre was Fast And Furious Tokyo Drift. Again, not the greatest movie of all time, but it captures a youthful mood and fun excitement...as this movie does. And, again, who doesn't love some of the best cars in the world being DRIVEN!!! I'd buy the DVD and wouldn't have been dissatisfied paying to see it in a theater.
The more I watch John Huston movies the more I think of great directors. I was going to try to tie him into one of my favorite, modern directors, Oliver Stone; but it seems people, in general, were just stronger, grittier and more resilient back then. Today - everybody, like the reviewer who said he/she saw this movie when it first came out pointed out, seem to always want to SEEM/APPEAR so abstract and complex in their descriptions (parroting others as he/she stated) while not seeing the trees, as they ARE, for the overwhelming forest. I guess we all have our own path, influences and connections to the meat of life. To me this movie was very interesting in how the characters DID break down into something different...showing/REVEALING their more vulnerable, softer underbellies. But people of today act like we're above this behavior when we ALL are pretty much the same: a good show/front at first, but something inside that reveals a different hue later. Marilyn Monroe's character reminded me of an old girlfriend...so caring for everything, but an inability, HERSELF, to see and/or accept things as they REALLY are. So full of connecting to OTHERS'lives (out of a sheer NEED to do so to even exist) that she constantly gets distracted from any real path to understanding her own. Gable's character (and to a large extent Clift's and Wallach's as well) are so busy being "men" that they don't really know anything else until someone like an irresistible Roslyn comes along and VEXES them (as beautiful, substantive women/people do) into seeing things another way. But EVERYBODY has a vulnerability deep down under the apparent clothing and other outward facades we learn to craft from youngsters. The reason I said this movie seemed ahead of its time is because, even when horses were still regularly eaten by people in the US (and still are here in/on rare occasions and OPENLY in many other countries), Marilyn's character (Roslyn), with her innocent, naive aversion to killing ANY living thing, was, in the end, able to even convince a rational, realistic character like Gable's/Gay (who poignantly pointed out the hard fact that FEW things live in this world without something else dying) to free the captured horses headed to the feed grinder for the animals (something STILL done today...as many societies STILL/CONTINUE to consume/use horse meat). The movie reminded me of the hypocrisy of modern words like "liberal", "free thinking" and "green"...in relation to people's CHOSEN lifestyles. It is so easy for people to SAY they are something these days...like so many modern women saying "I'm a lesbian" (when they would have NEVER professed this 10 years ago) or someone saying "I don't believe in killing things with a face" (though they happily dine on McDonald's and wear fur and leather). Monroe's character WOULD be like this/that in today's world. So sensitive and thoughtful, but REALLY just as cold as ice below the surface as anyone else when it came down to the nitty gritty (as revealed when she coldly made the comment to Wallach's character 'your wife wouldn't have died if the car's battery wasn't dead'). THAT is reality. THAT was the brilliance of Huston. Monroe's character showed her true side then (in the first part of the movie)...while the men had to be broken down (sound familiar fellas?). I respect a world in which a person eating a steak would have no problem cutting the cow's throat...or skinning the rabbit...or valuing a human life over that of a dog or cat or pig (an animal more intelligent than dogs or cats - yet we readily munch on them with no problems yet scorn those who consume cat and/or dog meat). This is why Europeans (and other foreigners) have contempt for Americans (though they still, of course, YEARN for America's freedoms). Many times we (Americans, as great as we ARE) seem so FULL of ideas over here when, IN REALITY, we're more full of the same things ALL the creatures mentioned in this long review discharge from their posterior. At the end of the movie all the guys MIRACULOUSLY become "humane" (like Marilyn) and free the horses. Gable's character didn't go down without a fight, though (showing his dominance over the animal)...and Wallach's character ALSO revealed how he REALLY felt in the truck. Clift's character was the ONLY man who GENUINELY seemed capable of change (I guess due to his sensitivity from a strong Madonna complex brought out by his enchantment with Monroe's character). But in the end they were all vexed by a hot piece of ass (as Marylin certainly was, but DEEPLY captured her own essence in this, her last performance)...and ALL would have gone back to being the same PEOPLE they were if/when she was gone. We're all the same people. The most devout pacifist will cut the throat of another living thing if it came to their own survival. And the hardest killer (cowboy or soldier) will, like Clift's character, EVENTUALLY, breakdown and crawl into Mommy's arms. This was a story about us all...transient, largely undefined travelers in time and space.
First I should say I get teary-eyed every time I watch "Wall-E" - so I know good animated movies. This movie is just not getting me very interested (watching it now and soon to turn it off). It was cute in the beginning as the dog's behaviors were really cute in mimicking an actual dog. Then, once the plot became clear and the dog's voice (which doesn't fit as others have stated) was revealed, the movie went down hill. I don't understand how people can say this is funny. It just goes to show that people really don't think and/or aren't honest and say things are good because they SHOULD be good (being a cartoon). It's almost like people force themselves to like things. It shouldn't be hard to like things - it should be natural. But this cartoon/movie just really isn't good. It has potential (or should I say had), but it just isn't (enough). I heard of this movie before, but now I see why it wasn't a blockbuster. I'd be surprised if it made $45 Million. I'll look that up now and then I'm done with "Bolt". 3 for animation but a plot that was doomed to failure as well as weak anthropomorphic screenplay. I just don't care about these characters...even as someone willing to make the imaginary stretch (as we do when we watch any movie - animation or otherwise).
|Page 1 of 2:|| |