Tribute is a documentary that revolves around the funeral service of Stanley Tookie Williams and the "tribute" spoken by his friends during the service. Surprisingly, Nation of Islam leader Louis Ferrakhan gives an amazingly moving eulogy in this film.
While the film supposedly re-enacts Tookie's execution, it really doesn't and personally, I thought the re-enactment scenes could have been left out.
Overall, it is a fine documentary of the funeral of Stanley Tookie Williams. As I said, I had the pleasure of meeting Barbara Becnel personally, and I know how sincere she is in her mission.
"Tribute" is an excellent documentary of Tookie's funeral. It isn't in depth, but it is fine nonetheless.
to be shown in an art museum. It is a 71 minute experience of
videos and photos accompanied by spoken prose, poetry, and music
of one man's experience of the transition of Liverpool. It is almost
a documentary of sorts. Whatever it is, it is mesmerizing, absorbing, and truly magnificent. I honestly believe that this film will be part of many video displays in museums throughout the world. We first experience Liverpool early in the 20th century when the author is young then experience Liverpool throughout his childhood, his adolescent years, young adulthood, adulthood, and finally, the sadness of what once was in reminiscence.
It is the true story of young man who holds those on a bus hostage. Because the television media were at the scene, a major part of the movie is televised live footage of the hijacker and his hostages on the bus. It is riveting to watch. However, in addition, comments from those who knew the hijacker as a child and teenager are included, as well as comments from the police and hostage negotiating team. Also included is footage of the hijacker and his "associates" interviewed earlier in his life.
Bus 174 has us asking several questions about the resources available to the poor in Brazil, about the training (or lack of training might be more accurate) of the police and hostage negotiators, about the lack of communication between those involved.
But most importantly, this movie is about "S", a real person who we gain a real understanding about. The movie dwells a bit too long on "written history" and while the bus footage is riveting, it may go on too long in the second hour.
Since so many television crews were shooting footage, I tend to think that more graphic footage may exist of some of the scenes that those who made the film chose not to use. But this movie was an edge of seat thriller. A chilling documentary of a real life event. I kept wondering how I would have reacted if I were on that bus. And I kept seeing "S" as those on the bus did, a scared young man who only truly wanted to get out alive and not kill anyone. It's ashamed that the police didn't see him that way.
This film is non-stop action. Bourne runs, Bourne runs, Bourne runs... you get the idea. On the other hand, what "plot" there is actually makes sense. It ends up being an intelligent action thriller, with a LOT of action. I watched this film on DVD while working out on a treadmill and an hour felt like 10 minutes.
So, to sum up, if you like your thrillers with LOTS of action, and no plot "loopholes" in whatever plot there is, this one is for you! It's like watching someone else play an action Video Game.
The plot has been summed up by another reviewer so I don't need to go into details about the plot. My problem with this movie, however, was that I didn't like the main character. He came across as self centered, one dimensional, and uncaring... bitter, but not willing to look at any options.
Perhaps, as another reviewer pointed out, gay society in France has fewer supports than gay society in the US or other countries. That might explain the main characters feelings and emotions. But it doesn't change my feelings about the movie.
I watched "Before I Forget" on DVD after watching "Paranoid Park", "City of Men" and "3:10 to Yuma". I would gladly sit through any of those movies again (and I don't particularly like Westerns) than watch "Before I Forget" again.
As I said in my summary, I found this movie to be a "Pretentious, self centered bore without a single likable character"
This movie is filmed in an "artsy" style. At times, we have a closeup of the main character who is carrying on a conversation with another character who we don't see. At other times, the movie has a "stoned" feel as if the character is high. At other times, we see a conversation being held between two characters yet we don't hear the spoken words. Again, it's "artsy". the main character spends most of the movie in a state of "numbness" which is appropriate given the material. When the movie ended, I reacted the same way that I reacted to several other Van Sant films...which was by saying "and...?" In Paranoid Park, Van Sant puts far more closure on the story than in many of his other films. But Van Sant's characters are complex and the closure only relates to part of their complexity.
I have to say I liked these people. They were intelligent, cared about each other, and seemed very real. I'd be happy to have any of them as my friend. That's a rarity in movies these days where teenagers are depicted and I have to give Van Sant credit for the way that the characters come across.
So, to sum up... If you like Van Sant films, you'll like this one. For those who haven't seen a Van Sant film, I'd say give it a chance. Good Will Hunting is probably the movie by Van Sant that has the broadest appeal. But Paranoid Park seems the most real.
I recently purchased the movie on DVD and watched it. Reviewing this movie is as difficult as explaining it. It has a serious story about a young man from Britain who comes to NYC's Greenwich Village during a time when protests of the Vietnam war were increasing. But Across the Universe transcends from a serious story, to real life footage of the Detroit Riots, to an acid trip hallucination, then back to a serious story several times throughout its 2 hours and 15 minute running time.
All of the actors are excellent and all the members of the Beatles would be proud, I'm sure, of the performances of those who sing the Beatles' songs.
I'm a NYC resident and if this movie were released in the early 80's, it's the type of movie where one would have lit a joint in the balcony of the Loews Astor Plaza theater, and went for the "trip".
If you like the Beatles or Julie Taymor or both, pop in the DVD, sit back, let yourself go and enjoy the ride "across the Universe"!
However, I applaud Cle Bone Stone for his work on this excellent documentary.
The music is still excellent, and the new songs are very good as well. Queen Latifah is very good although she seems to be playing the same type of character that she played in Chicago. Tracy and Link are excellent. But...
The movie seems to play on the racial issue to excess, especially in the last half hour when a great deal of the plot was changed from the Broadway musical. While the Broadway musical could be taken seriously, I couldn't take the last hour of the movie seriously.
After having seen the brilliant Harvey Fierstein as Edna on Broadway, John Travolta was,... well, let's just say that Dorothy Michaels would get a 9 out of 10 (for those who remember Tootsie) while Edna would get a 4 at best. And there was no chemistry between Edna and Wilbur.
But I had real problems with the changes in the story. Why take something that works and change it? I haven't seen the current cast of Hairspray on Broadway, and few have these days with the strike. But when the strike is over, I'd urge everyone who visits or lives in NYC to see the show.
As for the movie... well, it IS entertaining. How does it compare to other musical movies? I liked Chicago (the movie) more than the Broadway Musical and I liked Phantom (the movie) MUCH more than the Broadway musical (although it took some time for me to get used to the Phantom's "gruff" voice). Chorus Line was much better as a musical, and Rent was better as a musical.
I've got to say that I'm a little disappointed in it. I really didn't like Sidney Potier's performance. I found it mechanical. I work in a tough "hood" and I kept thinking as I watched this movie how times may have changed.. ie. that the opposite might be true today... ie a white family planning to move into a "black hood".
As far as African American stories go, I didn't find this up to the works of August Wilson that I saw in the NYC theater (King Headley III and Jitney). But it was a fine movie anyway and well deserved of an 8.
The Tenants is an excellent though simple story transformed into a very good screenplay. The problem, however, is the director. This movie feels like it was directed by a film student. It's directed in what I would call a "matter of fact" style which fails to develop a relationship between the characters. In fact, the characters seem just to be reciting lines. Despite that, the screenplay carries this movie well and it was certainly a movie I wanted to go back to and watch to the end on DVD.
Of the three recent Broadway shows that have transferred to the "big screen" The Producers is BY FAR the worst. "Rent" wasn't wonderful but it was tolerable. Phantom, once I got over the fact that the "phantom" couldn't sing, was actually quite good. Overall, Rent gets a "6", Phantom an "8.5" and The Producers, a 2.5.
Please, if anyone is planning to visit NYC, see the Producers on Broadway. It's FAR, FAR! better than the movie.
As much as I wanted to like this movie, I didn't. The movie seems to feel that mature teenagers are able to make choices regarding their sexual experiences and I had no problems with that. The problem with this movie for me, is that the characters weren't well developed and their relationship with each other wasn't developed either. Unlike those who made other comments, I didn't like the character of "Big John". I agree that the director was courageous in tackling so controversial a topic. I only wish the result was a better movie.
I found this movie very, very entertaining, and it made the minutes on my treadmill seem like seconds. but... Leonardo DeCaprio never convinced me that he was Howard Hughes. In other films, the performances were so good that the actor became the character (Malcom X and Ray come to mind). But my only real gripe about this movie is the ending.It almost felt as if the director was leaving the door open for an Aviator, Part II. We never know what became of the Senate Hearings and we never know what became of the potential purchase of TWA. Despite this, I found it an excellent depiction of a fascinating era in American History. I saw Million Dollar Baby and, in my opinion, this is a FAR superior picture, though no better than an 8.