Reviews

53 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Star Trek (2009)
9/10
Push restart button. Then,enjoy. This Trek will not be painful
10 May 2009
This is an elegant and action-filled restart of a 43-year-old TV series.It starts in the middle of battle and never lets off.I had to be dragged to this movie in a way. Yet once the lights went down and the explosions started (I'm a guy, forgive me Mother Theresa) I was hooked. We go back in time to Captain James T. Kirk 's troubled childhood,circa 2300-something A.D., through his near-dismissal from Star-fleet Academy. James was a ne'er-do-well on the farmlands of Iowa headed for a troubled life and the famous Captain Pike recruits him for the Star-fleet Academy. Although he's almost too screwed-up to attend such a disciplined place, James Kirk is there at 0800 hours after a long night of drinking and fighting in a dumpy bar, and gets on board,so to speak. The beauty of this script is the noble, strong and forceful presence of old-time Science Officer Mr. Spock, portrayed here as a young handsome and valiant man by Zachary Quinto. Spock is an instructor at The Academy who initiates disciplinary action against Cadet James Kirk for cheating on an essential,impossible exercise. The action goes to high-gear as the Academy's cadet corps are mobilized to fight an impossible foe with the Star-fleet Command. Through twists and turns now-Officer Kirk and Mr. Spock mobilize near-limitless inner resources and superior command-level skills to solve problem after problem with grace and courage that is charming and stunning.In sum, they're near super-heroes, in all their Technicolor glory.God, what a great story. This is a high-level re-vision of a tired workhorse series that is a gift to fans from whatever era of the franchise in Movies and TV.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Yeah , it's a PG-13 failure
10 October 2008
Man I wanted to love this movie. Leslie Nielsen is the narrator and he frames/kills this movie.He is death to a comedy-he just shuffles along like a ghost.The editors of this film should have cut him out-relentlessly. PG-13 movies live in a twilight world of half-humor: This movie is sacrificed to the nebulous PG-13 rating, and its half-intelligent target demographic. I had hoped for a sharp,witty, and lovable satire of The Fat Slob: Michael Moore. Instead,this is comedy for the mis-wits. As stated in The Onion review, this comedy was written by several writers, working separately-and at cross purposes. Kevin Farley is a good actor reaching desperately for a good comedy line. He is stuck in a David Zucker nightmare. I like Kevin and not much else herein. James Woods is like a wax figure. The two 'likeable" jihadis seem too talented for this sad trainwreck. They seem like talented people waiting for a laugh-line. The most dramatic character in this movie is George S. Patton,who should infuse this movie's theme-of patriotism- with clear ringing resounding wonder and beauty. Patton carries the theme of this movie and yet the writer and director squanders his impact. In sum this movie goes nowhere: half-satire, unrealized..., and half-patriotic anthem. 4-5-6 people can't drive the car. This movie is pointless.Just like my review, perhaps.
12 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
These stupid f-ing Danish have a national epic about a retard
15 August 2008
Oh my God.The stupid Danish spend their lives-worshipping a retard.No-wait-He's a troll.That's different. This is their national defining epic. Their Saviour is a Geat:BeoWulf. A Geat who kills a retard. Who has sex with a witch,who had sex with the retard. Then, the retard has a mom who gets really mad about the retard dying. All because some guy from Daneland killed Grendel's Dad. I'm thinking Homer's Iliad here. Or not. Thus,we have the European Union. The Europeans have a f-ing troll as a defining icon. And the Europeans criticize George Bush. This is just psychotic. No wonder the Romans kicked your European ass.
0 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
This movie is too cool for me?
26 May 2008
I love the "idea" of this movie: Two Star Trek fans/losers actually get into the film industry,sort of: As Ancillary editors/aspiring movie directors-in short: Half-baked.They live the life. They have hot sex or something. At least they think they do. Their weakness for all kinds of cheezy action-figure toys and comic books actually fills their lives with a kind of Bushido warrior ethic. Or something like that. Arrested development makes them both charming and utterly hopeless as dating/marriage prospects. They deserve to fail. And yet,they muddle through.Who woulda thunk it? They borrow the idea of a father-figure/ghost from Woody Allen's "Play It Again Sam", by way of the fat, sad, and relentlessly self-reinventing William Shatner. Captain Bill is reading a porno-mag-the "long way"- when they literally stumble upon him. Our two young heroes somehow make it to the dreaded age:3-0,with their childhood intact, and add a little bit of wisdom to their age.They actually take Bill Shatner under their wings,in his forlorn,shabby state, and re-introduce Bill into the world of romance. Bill finds love, as the flawed person/persona of James T. Kirk.To hate William Shatner is to love him. To love him,likewise. Shatner has escaped all the critics,adroitly.He has won,ultimately,the game of life.This movie is an ode to Bill Shatner,and a fairly good movie,made on the cheap,by two kids with a dream.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fay Grim (2006)
3/10
Meaningless heartless NewYork actors go nowhere
26 April 2008
Parker Posey is a hottie.I guess.The Director dragged in Jeff Goldblum off the street for a little fake gravitas.Parker is a fine hottie actress and this film goes nowhere-fast.Trans-national multi-generational spy intrigue =a fine good film. Or not.This plot is pointless so I will not go on. Director Hal Hartley drags in a jihadi dirtbag for some "local color".Parker Posey has a "scene" with her vibrating cell-phone,in her crotch.There's fine movie-making.Parkie-You go girl.Your career is solid gold.No,really.We flat-landers really get impressed by that. Parker Posey is an indie actress. No, She really is. I really mean it this time.
2 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A scientific theory is simply a wager.American Darwinism is a fixed bet.
26 April 2008
It is my first duty to admit-that I had One semester of calculus. I admit that I only had two semesters of general Physics.Semester Two of Physics is like a Martian incomprehensible nightmare.I regret I lack this basic understanding of ordinary physical concepts.I submit I lack the fundamental standing to criticize any science at all.That said....

Ben Stein asks a scientist from Great Britain:"So where did the first,original proteins of life come from?" Three times. The Answer,paraphrased,was this:"Well there is a theory that proteins formed on crystals".Ben Stein asked-"On crystals?". The guy from Great Britain says "I just told you how it works".In other words this British scientist passed along a theory, and if you or I question it-you're a stupid fart.The fact is "Intelligent Design" is not "scientific", but rather existential, or metaphysical.Intelligent Design cannot be proved, as I see it,in a lab, or mathematically.Biological inquiry is a club-footed fraud,in the midst of the larger, ultimate issues of thought.Darwinism seeks to answer questions of religion or ultimate reality in scientific terms.A seriously bad move.Biologists are seriously impeded in the study of thought,religion,metaphysics.Intelligent Design is an extremely difficult concept,which may be scientifically unprovable.Biology is simultaneously the cutting-edge of science and the sorry ghetto of squalid metaphysics. That said,I love this movie. It is thrilling. It is an opinionated movie-that asks for thought.Most all propaganda expels thought. THIS movie is well-edited and filmed:It is not propaganda per se but it is a emotionally-filled movie that encourages the viewer to take sides.It fills my heart with joy.It does not describe itself as The Ultimate Answer to the mystery of life.I recently listened to a production on a Christian radio station that rather closely followed the script of this movie. This makes me feel-intuit-that this fine and lovely,beautifully made movie-is a part of a Christian "press release"/media campaign concerning evolution and Intelligent Design. All the way back in 1950-Fritz Perls-in "Gestalt Therapy" asked us to conceive of the left hand-levato- version of reality, whenever we invested too much in the right-handed-dextro- one. I believe Dr. Perls,M.D., the founder of the Great Gestalt revolution,was speaking directly to the constipated fat-a**es who cling like gargoyles to the temples and cathedrals of Evolution.I could be wrong. I only hope that you view this movie, and feel the love and intelligence of this fine work of film-making. It is a dialogue, not a propaganda monologue.
22 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A pretty good thriller
10 May 2007
I just thumbed through Angels And Demons-a mass media paperback,written by Dan Brown.Only cursory-nothing specific.I find this writing hateful to my intellect and my own person.This book,Angels and Demons-is so stupid and hateful-to the quality of American society-that it is a book for retards-and not true men.Angels and Demons is a complete disgrace to human history,specifically-to the fine grand and powerful art of writing-going back to the great writers like Plato and Marcus Aurelius,and also to the fine writers of today,such as William Faulkner-amongst many others.It is writing for a ninth grader-disguised as adult popular fiction.It adds absolutely nothing to my great Western Culture.It disguises its fraud with esoteric references to the ancient history of the Catholic Church. The movie Da Vinci Code is more complicated.It spreads a hatred for the Opus Dei-literally-Work of God-movement-that-in actual fact-must be much more benign-and loving-than could be portrayed in a Mass-media paperback/movie.This being a dramatic movie-the evil albino Opus Dei follower-Silas- must of course, be psychotic.I say to you, my reader-this is artistic license.I say to you-Dear reader-that the pathetic Slander against Opus Dei is unfounded.For Christ's sake-Opus Dei is a bunch of Catholics-who wish to serve God.Catholics are Not Psychotic!I mean-C'mon!That being said, this is a thrilling and pretty plausible thriller-about: The End of Catholicism.That is to say-The Bitter End of The Catholic Church.Thom Robbins of course wrote the book,Another Roadside Attraction,about the end of Catholicism- a mere 37 years ago.In the end,Tom Hanks looks distracted.Audrey Tatou looks rather fetching.This is a thriller-let's move on to the next thing already.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nacho Libre (2006)
4/10
A PG movie to love and suspect
30 April 2007
Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.

I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Oh god I have to write another review
20 April 2007
I think I need to lose thirty pounds.My BMI is 30 now and that's not good enough.My mother was a schoolteacher whose only wish was that I would be great.I never lived up to my potential.I'm laughable.Isn't Terrell Davis's BMI around 10 or so? Shannon Sharpe has got to be 10.My Mom had so much hope for me.So much hope.Anyway, this movie is spectacularly terrible.It disgraces the soul in me.It is a meaningless distraction.At least I am doing ten push-ups a day.Jaime King looks hot.Chow Yun Fat looks fat.The first three push-ups are easy-then the next seven take a little doing.Chow pretends to like the Tibetan Monks,for some unknown reason.I think this movie is about sleazy gangsters-or just meaningless Western culture.This movie is about-**Nothing**.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Galaxy Quest (1999)
10/10
The best science fiction movie ever
20 April 2007
Once again, IMDb has screwed up my review. It is practically unrecognizable. The review I wrote begins:" I love every square centimeter of this movie..." It continues: " I am not Tim Allen's biggest fan-but he nails this role." Or words to that effect. Continuing: "Sam Rockwell steals every scene he's in-but he's a natural-born comedian." IMDb, it appears, displays its heavy-hand at editing for unnecessary reasons.I applaud this movie at every possible turn-yet the frosty Kommisariat at IMDb needs to scrub my writing clean of every possible human fingerprint. IMDb must be a sad place.

Gals geeks and gin-soaked space-heroes.Leather-suited space-babes who are in reality octopuses.Sam Rockwell at his very best.Sigourney Weaver in a jumpsuit.A space-TV series that is taken seriously by space-aliens from a galaxy 40 light-years from us.This is the context of this fantastic and possibly great motion-picture.Every scene in this movie is full of life.It is so full of life that I just can't stand it.This movie is a joyful gift to all humanity.It is a great reason to sit back and say: I live in a great country.My beautiful country:The United States of America,sends its love and honor and honesty and valor and courage-out to the whole world.This is a movie for everyone. It is just a strange amalgam of nutty strangeness and hearty love.This movie says to every human being:America loves YOU.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not an anti-war movie-just a movie about the screw-ups in war
20 April 2007
A fairly balanced vision of war: advance,retreat,crushing losses and fantastic lucky breaks.A movie which holds up well after 30 years.The battle of Arnhem was a logistical nightmare. Operation Market Gardens was fought in the context of the powerful,daring and terminal assault on Nazi Germany: the June 6,1944 invasion of France, which adds to its irony.This movie is full of sorrow and stupidity and what seems to be a lot of tactical detail which makes it a thrilling work of film.I love this movie despite its minor flaws.The top leaders who engineered this fiasco were in love with a big idea.This movie explores the psychic flaws that led to a bunch of dead men and a whole lot of finger-pointing,and the ultimate feeling of regret felt by me, a viewer.James Caan is powerful as a veteran sergeant with a profound sense of duty to his senior officer. A young and handsome Anthony Hopkins is great as usual.Gene Hackman plays down to the level of his acting-competition as a terse Polish general who sees the flaws in the operation from the beginning.Hackman is better than this.In all, this is a thrilling and well-crafted war film.If you want to understand the war in Iraq, this might be a starting place:Bad Things just happen.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I can't explain
19 March 2007
Catherine O'Hara is annoying.She is as good as Meryl Streep or Jennifer Connelly as an actress.When she does these Christopher Guest movies-well she does make my skin crawl.Chris and Catherine need to fix this problem.Catherine's poor choices make this movie drag.The director,Chris Guest,needs to look at Catherine's talent, and re-direct it.Catherine has the talent-but it is sadly mis-directed.This movie is kind of annoying-and an excellent work of fine art,based on a 1940's-era fictitious melodrama called Home For Purim.It is a parody of Hollywood.When you take a bunch of actors, and tell them to improvise a movie-this violates the usual storyboard version of how to construct a movie.Every scene is a Hobsen's choice,which depends on how the improvising actors play a scene.This movie is an improv-which somehow-creates a coherent movie.Improvisation is a beautiful art, and Christopher Guest the director is somehow expected to create a movie-a complete experience-from 20-or 30 different actors -all playing his individual scene-and then making it all tie into a final script-which becomes a real movie experience. These actors SING.Parker Posey has simply grown-exponentially-as a great and fine actress.John Michael Higgins is a true and fine improvisational actor.Jane Lynch is absolutely beautiful and beautifully sarcastic.Fred Willard is a complete-and accomplished- clown.This is a complex movie-an actor's movie-which-ultimately-pays off.Ed Begley is wonderful.The whole cast is fine.The melodrama-Home For Purim-is so annoying I wanted to just chuck the whole movie-and regret the waste of all these fine actors.You have to give this movie a chance.The British lady-Nina Conti- with the monkey-puppet is both annoying and ultimately riveting-especially on the DVD outtake.Carrie Aizley and Ricky Gervais share a true acting moment -on the DVD-that is special.In baseball terms-you put a bunch of home run hitters into the line-up, and great things happen.This is ultimately Christopher Guest's most complex exploration of improv,and Chris hits a home-run.The experiment is a success.God bless you Chris!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
By God I Hate This Movie
9 March 2007
This hateful movie is called a satire.It seems to blame the Jews for every problem on earth.Strangely enough-so does President Ahmedinejad of Iran-blame the Jews for every single problem on earth.Sasha Cohen's "satire"is equal to Ahmedinejad's "valid Islamic truth". I challenge any adult to view the abject barbarism practiced by Islamis in Iraq and then laugh about the "cute" Jew-hatred exhibited in this film.Islamis butcher Islamis in Iraq. They -The Iraqis-call this religious freedom.Electric drills to the head are not my idea of freedom. Borat freely discusses his hatred of Jews and gypsies and the viewer goes along with his European/American travelogue.Hahaha. Sasha Cohen-the satirist-is laughing right along with us-at his "brilliance".He,Borat, becomes a sad and quote-lovable-unquote fish out of water.I am busting a gut over here.Sasha Cohen presents a complex movie,and I salute his intention.Ultimately- I hate Sasha Cohen.That said,this is a pretty good travel movie.A partially hateful fraud.Perhaps an acceptable documentary.It ultimately fails-although it is a valiant attempt at street-theater, with Cohen's inspired attempt to portray Borat's eastern European "friendliness" on the streets and subways of urban, and paranoid New York City.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Orlando (1992)
8/10
A great movie and a great experience
18 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Tilda Swinton takes her acting to a new level here. If you accept her as both a guy and a girl, you will swim anew with joy. Firstly she's a girl. I hope that is not a spoiler for you. Her name is Tilda. Get a clue. Okay, so she plays a guy-not unusual in Elizabethan England, on the stage.Actually guys played girls-you get the idea. Tilda's character meets Elizabeth 1st.Being acting, of course Elizabeth is played by gay actor Quentin Crisp, who is a guy. Moving along. Tilda just rocks as a guy. Okay, this movie is about how girl/guy Tilda just moves along in life as a guy/girl. Trust me-this movie works because Tilda-the main actor- is just so freaking beautiful. You-the viewer-love Tilda-the actress-because she is playing a girl playing a guy. And so on. This movie works because of course Tilda Swinton is beautiful. This is a great movie because it has ideas, beauty and fine acting. I think my review was changed here by IMDb.Why is that?
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
This is a funny movie no really
16 December 2006
Um, Parker Posey is a red-hot babe. Wait-MOM--could you not TOUCH THE COMPUTER so I could WRITE PLEASE! Anyway this is areally funny movie.Parker is soooooo hot. Anyway, I was not bored by this movie, for the most part.Christopher Guest is a really good director except that he gets these two boring actors, Eugene Levy and that chick who plays his wife- and they just go on and on and on. Catherine O'Hara just doesn't play real. She tries too hard. Dear Catherine--------------------------------------Less is more.The concept is parody. Do parody sweetie.Don't demonstrate acting-just act. The role is not 'performing your resume'.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
What the f**k-it's puppets
16 December 2006
Filmmakers Trey and Matt used to go to CU-Boulder--but escaped. Thank you Jesus.Boulder has a poetry school(not CU) which teaches anti-poetry. This school teaches not poetry but the hatred of poetry. If poetry is dead, why teach it? If poetry is viable, why charge thousands of dollars for students to learn how to do it badly? Moving along.This is a movie that tries to be great and is merely pretty good. This is not a bad thing.This is a movie with craft and style: for example, the song "Everybody has AIDS", a parody of the musical "Rent" I believe.The idea of a bunch of puppets featured as actors in a movie is pure genius. Okay, pretty-genius-like. The wit in this film is outstanding. The satire is cutting and original. And yet,...I wanted more. The cuckoo-clock curiosity of puppets as people helps this movie. I just wanted more. More puppet-sex.Just kidding.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The decline of an alcoholic,Dorothy Parker
12 December 2006
This is a fine movie about a sad writer. It is filmatically fine and above average. Jennifer Jason Leigh is a fine fricken actress.Jennifer's dad, Vic Morrow, of course was killed by a helicopter.Not a helicopter accident. A helicopter killed Vic Morrow by impacting his head with a helicopter blade. This may have cast a sad shadow on her life and intellect. Just my opinion. This is more a movie about Jennifer Jason Leigh's acting than Dorothy Parker.You should watch it as a tutorial on fine acting by a female. You should just breathe in the lovely technique of JJLeigh.She just manifests ordinary sadness amidst Parker's brightness. This movie inserts sepia-like poems *by Dorothy* into this biography and does so, well. The movie tracks the life and times of a certain Dorothy, who doesn't find the rainbow, or Oz.This Dorothy,Parker, ain't quite a poet but her movie is a thrilling and saddening biography. Dorothy Parker wasn't quite a poet I feel because she didn't 'make/write the grand sweep of poetry'. Who am I too judge you ask? Well, Parker writes clever doggerel not poetry. I suspect she may have had the anti-poetry affliction. Kinda like ripping off the derailleurs on your ten-speed bike old girl.Just my opinion. If Dorothy wanted to be a poet, p'raps she coulda opened up the full throttle engine of language of pentameter and hexameter and tetrameter--of glorious Shakespearian good stuff-which English provides. I suspect Dorothy thought she had to be cute or post-modern or whatever in order to be considered a 'real poet'. Just a guess on my part. A poet writes the f**k out of the language in order to discover the true truth of a language. Language, at least in Western culture, has all kinds of meter in it-naturally occurring. Parker was a reductionist- or what I call 'cheap with words'. When can a writer be cheap with words? Answer: Never. Jack Kerouac rolled a giant roll of paper into his remington-rand to complete his major work of writing. Moving along. Campbell Scott is pretty fine here as Robert Benchley. Jennifer Beals is wasted as the Forlorn Wife. This is a fine movie about empty people of great promise. Did I really just write that?
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A good try at a concert movie
12 December 2006
Dave Chapelle is a good comedian.He tried, seriously, to make a good film and he almost got the job done. He got the kids from the Ohio college drum corps on the bus into New York.These kids are absolutely beautiful. He got the bands. He got the freaky site for the concert, complete with leftover hippies living in Nowheresville,New York City. The problem with this movie is that the rappers are passe. Rap music is just over. I'm sorry- it just doesn't get the job done. Rap is a genre that is failed. Moving along. Lauryn Hill absolutely stops the show, with the Fugees, in her rendition of "Killing me softly with his song". There is titanic wonder in her voice. Lauryn Hill is abso-positively wonderful in her singing. Rent this movie just to hear her sing.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Roger & Me (1989)
5/10
leftist propaganda with-shock here- a sense of humor
25 September 2006
This movie was my first exposure to the Leni Riefenstahl of American leftism: Michael Moore. I laughed my a** off at this movie. Michael Moore was just so adroit at setting up a scene- and then delivering the punch line. Michael Moore is such a dumpy fat hog- you have to like him. If you find that kind of hog to your taste, however-you will continue to accept his loser lefty weltanschaung as real. Michael Moore has bigger fat to fry however- and this movie is a calling card for stupid and bigoted intellectual frauds to come. The basic thesis of this movie is that General Motors-GM- is an evil corporation. I suspect GM has many sins. As do I. I suspect Michael Moore expects GM to be a kind of paternal father and spiritual fountain of ethics- like Moses and Buddha and Jesus-wrapped up in a neat little package with a happy-smiley-face. I suspect Moore wishes that GM would be like a maternal fairy grandmother who grants every wish for every little princess and prince-disguised as an auto-worker- could want. I suspect Michael Moore is really p**sed off about things in general. Lefties are just p**sed off about everything. This really helps them live fruitful lives. Just ask a lefty who is now 50 or 60 or 70. Lefties just love Michael Moore because he wallpapers over the failure of their lost years of "activism". Lefties just love to " speak Truth to Power". I think lefties, of which I was one, are now Left-Over and sad regretful people. That is Michael Moore's sad demographic. That said, this is a funny movie and a good film. It is Michael Moore at his finest: a funny and intelligent and sardonic guy who has a gift. He has a way with a microphone and a camera. He perhaps misuses his fine gift. Just my opinion.
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Nash was in fact a Rambler and a Gremlin
21 September 2006
This is an unfaithful edit of my review of this pretty fine movie. by the staff at IMDb:

Jennifer Connelly is a shocking and beautiful actress. When my atheist friends tell me " There is no God", I say: How do you explain the existence of Jennifer Connelly then? That usually shuts them right up. Jennifer plays " the wife of" gifted mathematician John Nash. That's it. That's her role here. Second Banana to Nash, so to speak. John Nash and his wife were both students at Princeton(MIT?) although his future wife wasn't as splashy as he. She wasn't a potted plant-is all I'm saying....Nash was a mathematician of excellence. He pushed the limit of his mind and lost. This movie is a tender-hearted and artful representation of his complex and doofy and gut-wrenching and important life. This game-theorist Nash didn't realize he played a game on himself. How ironic. The game of Insanity is just another game for people who don't know when to quit. Sanity is where you quit your (failed/lost)game of life and move on. End of Story.Insanity is -sometimes-where you ask yourself to be an Intellectual Giant- without mercy or reprieve- when you might be a pretty fine Intellectual Mighty Whale instead. Nash was a fine, flawed person who wished to be Einstein. He must have hated himself unmercifully for having not achieved that. Genetics may have pointed him towards shizophrenia- I'm not an expert on this. Losing a game of Chess can be very hard to take. Nash played "Go" instead.I never learned how to lose at Chess. It makes you angry at the universe- if you take it too seriously. It feels like you are being humiliated by The Whole World. In reality, it's okay to fail at a game. John Nash forgot to throw the Monoply board over and start a new game. He killed his own life, by not allowing himself to quit the game:The life-game called Insanity. What a waste. In sum, this movie is good enough for Hollywood. It has a heart. I am glad I saw it. Please read the fine Sylvia Nasar book of the same title. It will thrill you and give you the background for this fairly good movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gladiator (2000)
6/10
better than a sharpshord in the neck-or whatever
18 September 2006
Russell Crowe is a pretty fine actor. He has the gift of acting on film: if that is a gift-he has it. He has the capacity to connect with the viewer. This movie is typical Roman schlock/ history =low-brow tastelessness. How do you correctly tell a story about the Roman dirtbags? Crowe portrays the General, Gluteus Maximus, who tries to help the Roman dirtbags protect their dirtbag empire. *** Not that I have anything against Roman dirtbag empires*** At any rate, General Maximus Gluteus (Russell Crowe) gets in a big-ass world of trouble because actor Richard Harris, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, likes Russell/Gluteus the Maximus MORE than he loves Marcus Aurelius's own son: Joaquin Phoenix(Commodus Toiletus). Richard Harris had a big-ass career hit 38 years ago with "MacArthur Park"-A fine and touching pop song which featured Richard Harris singing this masculine song in a powerful way, but an ultimately painful chorus. It was true grandeur in the pop world of AM radio. It was a sexual and sensual coup d'etat for AM radio which cannot be forgotten.I move on. General Gluteus Maximus runs away from Joaquin Phoenix(son of emperor Aurelius), and meets cool people who are slaves 'n' stuff. This is the second-reel...where a hero suffers and becomes a better person and stuff. Russell Crowe-General Maximus- meets tall African beautiful people who are slaves but act noble. Then, breathlessly, the screenwriter draws us back to Rome, where the evil Roman dirtbags live. The People in the gladiator arena in Rome like the gladiator, Crowe/Maximus , because that is what People do, when they have to think about something. Russell Crowe does big things, being noble. I bet the black Africans taught him something about being noble- because they have fine black skin, or something. In truth, tall and fine Africans are fine and beautiful people. This movie exploits them because this is a stupid Hollywood movie. Maximus puts up with repeated nonsense. He finds a way to win. hooray. I think this movie won the Oscar for best gay hairstyle on a leading Australian heterosexual man: Russell Crowe. what an honor. I believe Russell Crowe deserves better than this silly-ass Roman epic. just my opinion. Russell Crowe is just better than this silly trash-but then-really-so am I. Sometimes movies are just commerce. I don't mean to shock y'all. This a beautiful movie-full of great war scenes, and honor and courage. It is also a sleazy Roman history. Roman history is a sleazy Machiavellian thing. Sorry.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Undead (2003)
4/10
"Do you want to fight- fish queen -or become zombie food?"
14 September 2006
"Dramas don't sell outside Australia(internationally)"-so say the Speirig brothers. They are probably right. This movie is so creaky. It is a great work of creativity.Not movie greatness, but logistical creativity.An almost good movie built from hope and ingenuity and falling partly on its zombie face. It just plain strives to be a real movie. It reaches far beyond its spiritual grandfather: Night of the Living Dead, shot near Pittsburg,USA in 1968. Critically speaking, it sucks. It is a tiresome exercise- because Night of the Living Dead already did this idea. However when you look at the DVD "making of" feature you realize the dedication of the film-makers and look at this movie as a pretty fine achievement- academically. I would give this movie an A+ as a student film. Where do the film-makers go from here? it's got zombie brain-eaters, Alien invasion, and a bunch of pretty good goofy Aussie actors and a script that ends up in a ditch, intellectually. The movie is a large project filled with technical cool ideas and a pointless ending. Failure is not an option- but it is a beginning-yes?
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
What is the point of this movie? Sedition
11 September 2006
This was a shocking movie 34 years ago. FYI-it's no longer 34 years ago. Just thought y'all should know that. The photography of this movie is absolutely excellent. This movie is a picaresque novel about one Alex the Droog. He is outside the Establishment and embroiled in the establishment-which spits him out its maw. It is supposed to cheer and encourage any young man to throw over the old farty bastards and establish a new order. And now we have the Clintons, and their hippie camp-followers . This was the movie which was supposed to set Malcolm McDowell's career on a high flight into the stratosphere. I find that a serious bad thing, because Malcolm didn't make it as a star. Malcolm is a genuine star, with acting qualities we all recognize. This movie really shocked me and caused mental damage-because I didn't have the mental discipline, or artistic maturity to absorb it. Oh well. I was a teenager and I will survive. This is a gigantically artistic movie for its time. It is elegant in its editing. It is powerful: The colors and angles and script and direction all coalesce into an intense anti-establishment statement which stand as art even today. It is a creature of 1972. It is not so bad, considering the year 1972.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A transcendental movie
8 September 2006
This miraculous movie transformed me into a human being. It is meta-fictional- or more plainly- a story behind the story. This movie simply gave me the eyes to see the world in a new way. It is a courageous work of art. It was my first introduction to the great gift of theater-the art of changing a person through insight into a different reality, using the simple and honorable art called "acting". It also gave me the first introduction into the fine acting capacity of Dustin Hoffman. I love every inch of this movie. This is a movie which revels in irony, being the story of a man who travels between white and Indian worlds rather fluidly. It is playful and beautiful. It is the tale of impossibility which is our United States. A character like Jack Crabbe is impossible and yet fictionally true. This is the phenomenal beauty of this lovable and bitter tale of the Indian experience in a white world. All I can say is "ya ta hey", as it is said in Navajo. I get the glottal stops wrong in 'ya 'ta hey, because I'm white. The Jews say L'Chaim. Same difference. i think IMDb changed my review-yet again-nov 9 2007
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A propaganda film for 2006
28 August 2006
This is a tutorial film for a people sore afraid. This is both a primer on Japanese people, who deserve love, and Japanese people, who, 65 long and desperate years ago, deserved, an amount of fear. I love the Japanese people because I have no reason to do otherwise. It is not in my benefit to hate Japanese people.I actually love Japanese people because they have a beautiful culture. I love Japanese people because they have Zen Buddhism, which may be a credible religion- or not. This movie is designed to encourage Americans to distrust Japanese people-in the context of the hateful and totalitarian worldwide thrust towards Pacific Ocean domination. This movie is a profoundly well made propaganda film. It has an intense psychological impact. It speaks of the world fomented by the Japanese Imperial Army. The Imperial Army was in fact and in deed a vile force for hatred, genocide and narcissistic stupidity, which produced a world of suffering and pain. It was in fact evil. This movie correctly focused the viewer's attention on the evil and devious-in fact squalid- aim of the Japanese military in its totalitarian goals. The Japanese military was ultimately defeated. Thank you God. Now, we live in peace. It all seems a big misundertanding. The Japanese People had a Big Rising Sun on their flag. We, the Americans, dropped a big nuclear sun on two of their cities. This was a great sad day in human history. It was a great sad day in the history of all humanity. It was a great sad day in all human days. And yet, the Japanese Military suddenly stopped the beheading of three hundred thousand innocents in Nanjing- as if it were a mere accounting mistake. Never hear about the Japanese dedicating a shrine about the 300,000 Chinese disembowelled by the Japanese Army. A Mystery.
5 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed