206 reviews
The next documentary some other channel is going to make is "Woke Hot: The Rise and Fall of Netflix". It will be about how a channel that started with a pretty good marketing angle decided to start ramming identity politics down people's throats in one disaster unpleasant project after another and crashed and burned.
Here it is Abercrombie & Fitch. I really thought they were going to tell the story of a venerable company, the once high quality brand that went too postmodern, lost its way, started producing its clothes in China and hence lost both its respected old world name and reputation for quality clothes. That might have been an interesting story.
Nope. Not even close. It turned out to be yet another (how many is it now?) story about people complaining that some company isn't nice to them, and whose brand was "too white" and actually glorified good looking people, and where does that leave the ugly and fat people out there? Excluded. This is where my niece would come in an say "do you want some cheese with that whine?" For me, the new stock phrase is that these are now "The Days of Whine and Poses".
It did have one salutary effect -- it shows pretty clearly what is wrong with the civil rights laws in this country. If some company wants to push a particular "look", a "brand" -- something that involves a message that appeals to a particular demographic, what business is it of anyone but their stock shareholders? A Hip Hop/Rap fashion magazine might push African themes, or Urban themes, with the corresponding black people to sell them. Country and southern whites might want the same, or someone wanting to tap into the Laplanders ethnic group might want to find some Lapps to have as spokesmen (shriek, "but, but you should say 'spokespeople', grief, I'm feeling faint.") It's all too boring and silly.
To be fair, me and the wife had decided the day before to cancel Netflix, but in wandering around the channel seeing if there was anything I wanted to watch before it turns off, this came on, and it simply confirmed why Netflix is utter garbage now. It's too bad, it used to not try my patience every night, but it's too much.
Here it is Abercrombie & Fitch. I really thought they were going to tell the story of a venerable company, the once high quality brand that went too postmodern, lost its way, started producing its clothes in China and hence lost both its respected old world name and reputation for quality clothes. That might have been an interesting story.
Nope. Not even close. It turned out to be yet another (how many is it now?) story about people complaining that some company isn't nice to them, and whose brand was "too white" and actually glorified good looking people, and where does that leave the ugly and fat people out there? Excluded. This is where my niece would come in an say "do you want some cheese with that whine?" For me, the new stock phrase is that these are now "The Days of Whine and Poses".
It did have one salutary effect -- it shows pretty clearly what is wrong with the civil rights laws in this country. If some company wants to push a particular "look", a "brand" -- something that involves a message that appeals to a particular demographic, what business is it of anyone but their stock shareholders? A Hip Hop/Rap fashion magazine might push African themes, or Urban themes, with the corresponding black people to sell them. Country and southern whites might want the same, or someone wanting to tap into the Laplanders ethnic group might want to find some Lapps to have as spokesmen (shriek, "but, but you should say 'spokespeople', grief, I'm feeling faint.") It's all too boring and silly.
To be fair, me and the wife had decided the day before to cancel Netflix, but in wandering around the channel seeing if there was anything I wanted to watch before it turns off, this came on, and it simply confirmed why Netflix is utter garbage now. It's too bad, it used to not try my patience every night, but it's too much.
If you understand the reference made in the intro line above, then know that this will be a negative review. The 1980s saw a surge of Sword & Sorcery movies, some good (The Sword and the Sorcerer) and some abysmal (Ator the Fighting Eagle, et seq.). The vast majority fell in the latter category, but the one that stood far on top, the one that started the entire genre, or rather latter day incarnation of it, was Conan the Barbarian from 1982.
The movie had two things going for it: It was directed by John Milius, and scored by Basil Poledouris. Milius had an R-rating to work with, so didn't have to tone down anything, and was given enough free reign to allow characters to develop, some Zen anarcho-fascist philosophy to support the reasons as to why all the violence was necessary (honor and vengeance, that kind of thing). It had a great villain in James Earl Jones, though purists would, and have, taken a disliking to the movie for departing from Robert Howard's books (Thulsa Doom is a Kull bad guy, and not in the Conan books).
Conan the Destroyer, on the other hand, seeking to follow up the massive success of the first one, jettisoned Milius. They brought Poledouris back, and the music is quite good, but other than that, the entire thing was a mess. It was dumb, the comic relief was relentlessly vapid, and they blur who the bad guy actually is -- Wilt Chamberlain might have been an interesting choice, but looks and acts mostly buffoonish throughout even as one wonders what he's supposed to be doing there at all.
Hence, all that, being said -- the 2011 movie learned none of the lessons from what made the first one good and how they screwed up a good thing. They instead decided that they could keep the first one's violence, since they figured, that must have been the mistake made by the process of "Destroyer". No, that wasn't it. They might have learned by the second try at redoing the Conan franchise, though it was "Kull the Conqueror" in the late 1990s, and also failed to figure out what made the first one so good and all the imitators so dreadful.
In this one, Jason Momoa has the size and physique, but does not manage to overcome the lousy script. He is very good in other things, and had he managed the better performance he gave a few years later as a semi-similar character of Drogo in "Game of Thrones", he might have improved the Conan attempt, but to be honest, there was no saving it. Ron Perelman shows up as Conan's father, and the one that could have managed William Smith's appearance in the original, but he's given nothing to say or do. He just throws out bad lines and may have decided a paycheck was worth dressing up in furs and spending some time reading lines that mean nothing.
The plot meanders on, and I won't go into the spoilers since without much of a plot it's hard to spoil it. There's a mask, the bad guy is boring and appears once in a while, to do mean things, but his daughter is a little more appealing in the dark villainous area. Oh, and the comic relief is relentlessly vapid.
This was a well motivated attempt, but they keep trying to figure out what made people want to see Arnie with sword in hand, and they haven't even scratched the surface. Part of it is that they don't know how to tell a story, part of it is that they don't care at all about the characters they create, and part of it is that the fantasy world they create seems a variation on our own, without the techno-gizmos. In the 1982 version, Conan has a short conversation with his friend Subatai the archer/thief, where they talk about the Gods. It doesn't last long, but contributes an enormous amount to the story, it tells us who they are in a small way, and no, not a serious conversation, but one that is in fantasy world. Here they don't really have conversations, but they have gory violence and stupid bad guys doing rotten things for no apparent reason.
I'd say it's a must watch for Conan fans, just to get it out of the way, and see the failure in all rich detail. For the everyday movie fan, who really doesn't care about the backstory of Robert Howard or the genre, or this kind of alternate world, but just wants an decent action movie, then there is nothing for you hear. Even Jason Momoa fans will be disappointed, since, while not familiar with everything he's ever done, I've never seen him put in a less convincing, less committed performance. The entire exercise was a waste of time, and a waste of chance to reinvigorate an ancient story concept -- one that has appeared since the beginning of Western Civilization with the Nordic Sagas, the Greek Epics, the Medieval Chivalry, one that has appeared in stories like Beowulf and the Song of Roland. Unfortunate.
The movie had two things going for it: It was directed by John Milius, and scored by Basil Poledouris. Milius had an R-rating to work with, so didn't have to tone down anything, and was given enough free reign to allow characters to develop, some Zen anarcho-fascist philosophy to support the reasons as to why all the violence was necessary (honor and vengeance, that kind of thing). It had a great villain in James Earl Jones, though purists would, and have, taken a disliking to the movie for departing from Robert Howard's books (Thulsa Doom is a Kull bad guy, and not in the Conan books).
Conan the Destroyer, on the other hand, seeking to follow up the massive success of the first one, jettisoned Milius. They brought Poledouris back, and the music is quite good, but other than that, the entire thing was a mess. It was dumb, the comic relief was relentlessly vapid, and they blur who the bad guy actually is -- Wilt Chamberlain might have been an interesting choice, but looks and acts mostly buffoonish throughout even as one wonders what he's supposed to be doing there at all.
Hence, all that, being said -- the 2011 movie learned none of the lessons from what made the first one good and how they screwed up a good thing. They instead decided that they could keep the first one's violence, since they figured, that must have been the mistake made by the process of "Destroyer". No, that wasn't it. They might have learned by the second try at redoing the Conan franchise, though it was "Kull the Conqueror" in the late 1990s, and also failed to figure out what made the first one so good and all the imitators so dreadful.
In this one, Jason Momoa has the size and physique, but does not manage to overcome the lousy script. He is very good in other things, and had he managed the better performance he gave a few years later as a semi-similar character of Drogo in "Game of Thrones", he might have improved the Conan attempt, but to be honest, there was no saving it. Ron Perelman shows up as Conan's father, and the one that could have managed William Smith's appearance in the original, but he's given nothing to say or do. He just throws out bad lines and may have decided a paycheck was worth dressing up in furs and spending some time reading lines that mean nothing.
The plot meanders on, and I won't go into the spoilers since without much of a plot it's hard to spoil it. There's a mask, the bad guy is boring and appears once in a while, to do mean things, but his daughter is a little more appealing in the dark villainous area. Oh, and the comic relief is relentlessly vapid.
This was a well motivated attempt, but they keep trying to figure out what made people want to see Arnie with sword in hand, and they haven't even scratched the surface. Part of it is that they don't know how to tell a story, part of it is that they don't care at all about the characters they create, and part of it is that the fantasy world they create seems a variation on our own, without the techno-gizmos. In the 1982 version, Conan has a short conversation with his friend Subatai the archer/thief, where they talk about the Gods. It doesn't last long, but contributes an enormous amount to the story, it tells us who they are in a small way, and no, not a serious conversation, but one that is in fantasy world. Here they don't really have conversations, but they have gory violence and stupid bad guys doing rotten things for no apparent reason.
I'd say it's a must watch for Conan fans, just to get it out of the way, and see the failure in all rich detail. For the everyday movie fan, who really doesn't care about the backstory of Robert Howard or the genre, or this kind of alternate world, but just wants an decent action movie, then there is nothing for you hear. Even Jason Momoa fans will be disappointed, since, while not familiar with everything he's ever done, I've never seen him put in a less convincing, less committed performance. The entire exercise was a waste of time, and a waste of chance to reinvigorate an ancient story concept -- one that has appeared since the beginning of Western Civilization with the Nordic Sagas, the Greek Epics, the Medieval Chivalry, one that has appeared in stories like Beowulf and the Song of Roland. Unfortunate.
Envy.
The writers, the producers, the actors, nor the actors probably intended that one word to be the defining feature of the film, but that is what it is. Envy. As much as they wanted to create a rich fabric, a tapestry of social commentary of the current state of political affairs, they failed.
Though they dress it up with stock themes from left wing fantasies, the plot is simplistic. In about 140 years from now, the Earth has fallen into ruin. Why that happened is not explained, simply that Earth is now polluted, diseased, and overpopulated. As this degradation occurs, the rich and successful flee the planet and build a habitat in the sky, an "Elysium" – a variety of heaven from Greek Myth.
One can hardly blame them, since what they have left behind has become an admixture of the Road Warrior movies and the Gaza Strip. The story never quite explains what happens to most of the planet since the scenes only occur in southern California. That is of course offset by plot lines involving heartless and Machiavellian politicians, mindless robots, a faceless profit driven corporation, and a protective nativism (if one can call a space habitat refuge a native home).
Among the many parallels between this fiction of the future and the facts of the present, the denizens of this earth have little inclination to better, to improve, their own places, but would rather look to a place others have built in the sky, or look over the walls, and try and get there any way they can. Perhaps they believe it is easier to climb in through a window to illegally live in someone else's mansion than to build one's own home.
The writers, the producers, the actors, nor the actors probably intended that one word to be the defining feature of the film, but that is what it is. Envy. As much as they wanted to create a rich fabric, a tapestry of social commentary of the current state of political affairs, they failed.
Though they dress it up with stock themes from left wing fantasies, the plot is simplistic. In about 140 years from now, the Earth has fallen into ruin. Why that happened is not explained, simply that Earth is now polluted, diseased, and overpopulated. As this degradation occurs, the rich and successful flee the planet and build a habitat in the sky, an "Elysium" – a variety of heaven from Greek Myth.
One can hardly blame them, since what they have left behind has become an admixture of the Road Warrior movies and the Gaza Strip. The story never quite explains what happens to most of the planet since the scenes only occur in southern California. That is of course offset by plot lines involving heartless and Machiavellian politicians, mindless robots, a faceless profit driven corporation, and a protective nativism (if one can call a space habitat refuge a native home).
Among the many parallels between this fiction of the future and the facts of the present, the denizens of this earth have little inclination to better, to improve, their own places, but would rather look to a place others have built in the sky, or look over the walls, and try and get there any way they can. Perhaps they believe it is easier to climb in through a window to illegally live in someone else's mansion than to build one's own home.
This is a story, fictional of course, though based on factual events, about American terrorists from the early 1970's who set bombs and killed people for a variety of radical reasons. The fiction part of the movie is that it doesn't quite take into account the reality of the murderous reality of the actual terrorists.
Robert Redford, Susan Sarandon, and evidently many of the rest of the cast, don't seem to be concerned about the truth of the matters that occurred at that time. Death, destruction, bombs, violence. The facile, and self-important illusions they decided upon, are never considered.
Foolishness abounds, and the terrorists are very self forgiving as they go about their lives after they have decided they hate the nation they thrive in.
Robert Redford, Susan Sarandon, and evidently many of the rest of the cast, don't seem to be concerned about the truth of the matters that occurred at that time. Death, destruction, bombs, violence. The facile, and self-important illusions they decided upon, are never considered.
Foolishness abounds, and the terrorists are very self forgiving as they go about their lives after they have decided they hate the nation they thrive in.
Anyone who has heard, which are few I would suppose, of this movie knows that it's about a nonentity, so much so that the character doesn't seem to have a name, who is hired to complete the autobiography of a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
I don't think this is a spoiler, since others have amply described this particular plot twist, but I will say nevertheless, that this might be something one might consider such: Spoiler The former PM is then accused of "war crimes." Which seem to be simply his willingness when in power to turning over suspected terrorists to the CIA for "torture." And the nonentity ghost writer, writing as a replacement for his previous writer who has died in a boating accident, is left with questions.
Not much else happens in this movie, unless you are entertained by bizarre CIA fantasy conspiracy theories and hatred for the USA.
I have one of my one: The director, Roman Polanski, can't set one foot on American territory because he will be promptly arrested and put in jail. Why? Because he's a child molesting rapist, self-confessed as such, of a 13-year old girl. Evidently European nations take a much less serious view of such actions so he can roam freely from France to Switzerland.
With that in mind, it seems a touch ironic, or blackened ironic, that Polanski has the bad guy former Prime Minister of the UK stuck in the US because he can't go anywhere else (except places like North Korea) because those countries have signed the International Criminal Court treaty, while the US has not. And he might be charged with "war crimes" in those countries. While in the US he is safe.
I don't think this is a spoiler, since others have amply described this particular plot twist, but I will say nevertheless, that this might be something one might consider such: Spoiler The former PM is then accused of "war crimes." Which seem to be simply his willingness when in power to turning over suspected terrorists to the CIA for "torture." And the nonentity ghost writer, writing as a replacement for his previous writer who has died in a boating accident, is left with questions.
Not much else happens in this movie, unless you are entertained by bizarre CIA fantasy conspiracy theories and hatred for the USA.
I have one of my one: The director, Roman Polanski, can't set one foot on American territory because he will be promptly arrested and put in jail. Why? Because he's a child molesting rapist, self-confessed as such, of a 13-year old girl. Evidently European nations take a much less serious view of such actions so he can roam freely from France to Switzerland.
With that in mind, it seems a touch ironic, or blackened ironic, that Polanski has the bad guy former Prime Minister of the UK stuck in the US because he can't go anywhere else (except places like North Korea) because those countries have signed the International Criminal Court treaty, while the US has not. And he might be charged with "war crimes" in those countries. While in the US he is safe.
While the movie is obviously designed to attack Sarah Palin, exaggerating every mistake or misstep, which happens in every campaign, and ignoring every part about how she energized an otherwise flagging McCain campaign.
Instead, the people who come off worst are the McCain campaign staff, in particular Nicolle Wallace who appears to be a remarkably foolish person, without much grasp of real politics. Hopefully she was smeared as badly as Palin was, but it seems clear that she was supposed to be the "good guy" dealing with an ignorant fool (Palin). If one watches carefully, the opposite, in this movie, is apparent.
Instead, the people who come off worst are the McCain campaign staff, in particular Nicolle Wallace who appears to be a remarkably foolish person, without much grasp of real politics. Hopefully she was smeared as badly as Palin was, but it seems clear that she was supposed to be the "good guy" dealing with an ignorant fool (Palin). If one watches carefully, the opposite, in this movie, is apparent.
I don't know how anyone can criticize this movie in terms of technology, let's give credit where credit is merited. Much detail is given thought in forests and creatures and the alien world and such. Though, really not that much in an original way, not really. More just a click and another click on a computer. And ripping off old movies about the west from the late 60's through the 90's.
Absent the technology (which will fade in it's impressiveness in time), the question is what quality of movie is it?
It's stupid.
In fact it's idiotic. Beyond so. Without question.
E.g. When has an arrow been able to penetrate a bullet proof vest? Not that I know of in the twenty first century, who knows about the other side of the planet, but, really? Or why does an ostensibly ruthless colonizing people (horrible humans) been unable to destroy a primitive culture for profit reason (one plot line in the movie). Reeks of Ewoks.
It's basically an old style American Indian movie. Very much the same as "Dances with Wolves" with Kevin Costner. An Army guy (here being a Marine) meets natives and finds them to be one with nature and all that stuff. It's just dressed up here with cool special effects and very interesting conceptual context.
The context has mostly been done before. Flying lizard type things that are ridden like horses or birds for that matter.
The native folks who are seemingly at one with the earth -- see any movie about American Indians, obnoxious corporate guy in search of minerals... the list goes on and on.
The "Dances with Wolves" similarity is striking: Except the American Indians are blue, very tall, not very smart, look very much like cats; otherwise very similar in speak, attitude, and weird. Very little clothing, but also very little in way of understanding their culture. Much like modern American movies of the same sort (including, oddly, "Dances with Wolves).
Upon reviewing, there are elements of other American movies, with American troops overseas (on Earth that is), as in Vietnam -- the war machines of the obviously American colonizers (or miners, or exploiters, or whatever particular one fancies in some political fantasy) are extremely similar, a century in the future or more, as they are in the 1960's in Vietnam, or the 1990's and 2000's in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is a reminiscence of Apocalypse Now, but not the brilliance of that film, but in the end, (Spoiler -- spoiler -- this is not a PLOT spoiler but a CONCEPT spoiler) ...
... enjoying the defeat of American Marines is hard to understand by an alien species, especially in the first part of the 21st Century of this world.
The seemingly American military (in all but name) has technology of the future that isn't even close to the technology of today, and one might suspect if there is technology to move to another planet, it might improve or at least stay the same. Not so here. The battle between the "people" of the indigenous planet and the military of the "Sky People") is laughable.
The movie is a simple one, not really much original.
I won't give away spoilers, except to say, "you've got to be kidding" me moments." So ridiculous as to merit not just an eye roll but a wretch.
Absent the technology (which will fade in it's impressiveness in time), the question is what quality of movie is it?
It's stupid.
In fact it's idiotic. Beyond so. Without question.
E.g. When has an arrow been able to penetrate a bullet proof vest? Not that I know of in the twenty first century, who knows about the other side of the planet, but, really? Or why does an ostensibly ruthless colonizing people (horrible humans) been unable to destroy a primitive culture for profit reason (one plot line in the movie). Reeks of Ewoks.
It's basically an old style American Indian movie. Very much the same as "Dances with Wolves" with Kevin Costner. An Army guy (here being a Marine) meets natives and finds them to be one with nature and all that stuff. It's just dressed up here with cool special effects and very interesting conceptual context.
The context has mostly been done before. Flying lizard type things that are ridden like horses or birds for that matter.
The native folks who are seemingly at one with the earth -- see any movie about American Indians, obnoxious corporate guy in search of minerals... the list goes on and on.
The "Dances with Wolves" similarity is striking: Except the American Indians are blue, very tall, not very smart, look very much like cats; otherwise very similar in speak, attitude, and weird. Very little clothing, but also very little in way of understanding their culture. Much like modern American movies of the same sort (including, oddly, "Dances with Wolves).
Upon reviewing, there are elements of other American movies, with American troops overseas (on Earth that is), as in Vietnam -- the war machines of the obviously American colonizers (or miners, or exploiters, or whatever particular one fancies in some political fantasy) are extremely similar, a century in the future or more, as they are in the 1960's in Vietnam, or the 1990's and 2000's in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is a reminiscence of Apocalypse Now, but not the brilliance of that film, but in the end, (Spoiler -- spoiler -- this is not a PLOT spoiler but a CONCEPT spoiler) ...
... enjoying the defeat of American Marines is hard to understand by an alien species, especially in the first part of the 21st Century of this world.
The seemingly American military (in all but name) has technology of the future that isn't even close to the technology of today, and one might suspect if there is technology to move to another planet, it might improve or at least stay the same. Not so here. The battle between the "people" of the indigenous planet and the military of the "Sky People") is laughable.
The movie is a simple one, not really much original.
I won't give away spoilers, except to say, "you've got to be kidding" me moments." So ridiculous as to merit not just an eye roll but a wretch.
I think it takes a great talent to make the viciousness of the Nazis to seem like the good guys in a movie. Yet Quentin Tarantino manages to do it.
How can the worst and most stupid character in a movie be played by Brad Pitt, engaging in his idiocy, and the best played by an erudite educated Nazi who is far more interesting than all the grotesque anti-Nazis? That certainly takes some talent. When you are rooting for the Nazis -- the movie may have a problem. And this movie has a problem. As funny as it is, and there are some other sort of references they make that are sort of funny, but it's sort of stupid when it just comes down to it. I wish there were a better adjective to use, but stupid is all that really comes to mind.
How can the worst and most stupid character in a movie be played by Brad Pitt, engaging in his idiocy, and the best played by an erudite educated Nazi who is far more interesting than all the grotesque anti-Nazis? That certainly takes some talent. When you are rooting for the Nazis -- the movie may have a problem. And this movie has a problem. As funny as it is, and there are some other sort of references they make that are sort of funny, but it's sort of stupid when it just comes down to it. I wish there were a better adjective to use, but stupid is all that really comes to mind.
I will just say in case "SPOILERS WITHIN" -- it's hard to describe the documentary without describing it in some detail, so I'd urge anyone to see it before reading anything about it. Go in open minded. So beware of SPOILERS.
I would only say this movie is unfortunate insofar as Michael Moore made it. There is an extremely important message or rather perhaps story behind it. As to how the economy became what it is, or was, in late 2008 through (now) 2010.
Michael Moore is so left wing, some of the things he's troweling out are untrue or mangled versions of the truth. But there are some very true things going on here as well. It's unfortunate because one can dismiss this documentary as junk left-wing Michael Moore trash, and it's understandable since Michael Moore has made so much of that sort of trash.
This is sort of different. An interesting part is that it's entirely bipartisan in its criticism of the financial sector. Blistering criticism to be sure. He attacks Democrats as well as Republicans -- Robert Rubin, Christopher Dodd, the Clinton Administration, and it goes on. Of course the very far left folks like Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sander (self described Democratic Socialist) and Marcy Kaptur come off quite nicely, but that is to be expected in a Moore movie. He even manages to crowbar in a reference to the Iraq war from 2002 -- a stretch to say the least.
At one point, among his clownish behavior, Michael Moore prompts Marcy Kaptur into agreeing with his characterization of the TARP bill as a "financial coup d'etat." Which is sort of stupid. Even if you are against the TARP bailout, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan votes, it's not that.
When a movie characterizes events in such extreme terms, the real truth may be overlooked because the extremity is so easy to dismiss. Hence the unfortunate part. To be fair, Moore didn't just follow the rather inane tactic of "blame Bush first, last, and always, for anything and everything." A tactic which over time will become clear that it as silly as it is. He points fingers all over the place, many well placed, though his conclusions are not so well placed.
It really is too bad, that this very important story of the meltdown of the U.S. economy related to sub-prime and Alt-A mortgages, and the practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and other financial institutions, is being told by Moore, who very much likes himself so much, it gets in the way of telling it.
Having just seen it, I don't think he even mentions mortgage-backed securities (MBS), an extremely important part of the story.
There's a weepy part when a family can't repay the loan they made on their house so it was foreclosed upon. A distressingly common thing happening in 2009 and 2010. But it lacks the basic understanding that banks don't want houses, they want people to pay their mortgages on loans that they were given. And I hate banks to be quite frank, but it's true.
VERY MUCH A SPOILER: Almost at the end, Michael Moore says one of the most stupid things I've ever heard in a movie: "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil." The very system of economics that allowed him to make this unfortunate movie.
I would only say this movie is unfortunate insofar as Michael Moore made it. There is an extremely important message or rather perhaps story behind it. As to how the economy became what it is, or was, in late 2008 through (now) 2010.
Michael Moore is so left wing, some of the things he's troweling out are untrue or mangled versions of the truth. But there are some very true things going on here as well. It's unfortunate because one can dismiss this documentary as junk left-wing Michael Moore trash, and it's understandable since Michael Moore has made so much of that sort of trash.
This is sort of different. An interesting part is that it's entirely bipartisan in its criticism of the financial sector. Blistering criticism to be sure. He attacks Democrats as well as Republicans -- Robert Rubin, Christopher Dodd, the Clinton Administration, and it goes on. Of course the very far left folks like Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sander (self described Democratic Socialist) and Marcy Kaptur come off quite nicely, but that is to be expected in a Moore movie. He even manages to crowbar in a reference to the Iraq war from 2002 -- a stretch to say the least.
At one point, among his clownish behavior, Michael Moore prompts Marcy Kaptur into agreeing with his characterization of the TARP bill as a "financial coup d'etat." Which is sort of stupid. Even if you are against the TARP bailout, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan votes, it's not that.
When a movie characterizes events in such extreme terms, the real truth may be overlooked because the extremity is so easy to dismiss. Hence the unfortunate part. To be fair, Moore didn't just follow the rather inane tactic of "blame Bush first, last, and always, for anything and everything." A tactic which over time will become clear that it as silly as it is. He points fingers all over the place, many well placed, though his conclusions are not so well placed.
It really is too bad, that this very important story of the meltdown of the U.S. economy related to sub-prime and Alt-A mortgages, and the practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and other financial institutions, is being told by Moore, who very much likes himself so much, it gets in the way of telling it.
Having just seen it, I don't think he even mentions mortgage-backed securities (MBS), an extremely important part of the story.
There's a weepy part when a family can't repay the loan they made on their house so it was foreclosed upon. A distressingly common thing happening in 2009 and 2010. But it lacks the basic understanding that banks don't want houses, they want people to pay their mortgages on loans that they were given. And I hate banks to be quite frank, but it's true.
VERY MUCH A SPOILER: Almost at the end, Michael Moore says one of the most stupid things I've ever heard in a movie: "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil." The very system of economics that allowed him to make this unfortunate movie.
I can't add much to the laudatory admiration for this movie -- I share it. A wonderful example of bare, minimal drama, based on plot and acting and characters. I think it was almost without exception a wonderfully performed movie -- Henry Fonda, Jack Klugman, all the jurors.
Here comes the only thing I think I disagree about with others who think as I do that this is a wonderful movie. I think they were wrong.
It may very well be an aside as to what the jurors were really talking about, but to me, it was very important. And Henry Fonda made, again to me, some pretty poor arguments that were to overcome the evidence that was pretty indicative that the boy did in fact kill his father.
Just as an objective look at the arguments being made, beyond the wonderful drama, the boy was guilty from all facts that were presented. Perhaps that may be the only flaw, but a fundamental one, in this very exceptional movie.
Here comes the only thing I think I disagree about with others who think as I do that this is a wonderful movie. I think they were wrong.
It may very well be an aside as to what the jurors were really talking about, but to me, it was very important. And Henry Fonda made, again to me, some pretty poor arguments that were to overcome the evidence that was pretty indicative that the boy did in fact kill his father.
Just as an objective look at the arguments being made, beyond the wonderful drama, the boy was guilty from all facts that were presented. Perhaps that may be the only flaw, but a fundamental one, in this very exceptional movie.
I don't remember much about the show, except that Somers is an attractive actress, both of physically (of course) but more importantly as a person.
But this was part of an odd experiment where in the late 1980s, the powers that be, on NBC, tried to start "prime time" at 7:30 PM rather than 8PM.
I think they figured if they could rope a viewer in early they might be able to keep that viewer for the following shows.
Didn't work -- though interesting that Fox did something similar, successfully very soon after.
But this was part of an odd experiment where in the late 1980s, the powers that be, on NBC, tried to start "prime time" at 7:30 PM rather than 8PM.
I think they figured if they could rope a viewer in early they might be able to keep that viewer for the following shows.
Didn't work -- though interesting that Fox did something similar, successfully very soon after.
I have been a GI Joe fan for about my entire life. In fact, I wonder, now that I'm in my forties, I might be part of the target audience, or at least one of the demographic considerations. Had all the figures in the 70's, and even when I got older, in the 80's. Even video taped all the original episodes on the tube.
Nice take on decades past -- in preface; the move is okay. But it doesn't quite capture the fun of the original. Maybe it's too much to ask to do so.
There is a rule, mine only I think, the "Star Wars Rule": In the original three movies, there was a "gee whiz" bang to all of them. Higher tech than anyone had ever seen before, including Space Odyssey. But at the center was a interesting group of characters, Han Solo and Chewbacca, R2D2 and C3PO, just fun to watch, even Luke, while Luke, and were interesting in how they interacted. The great lasers and such just made it better, it didn't make it what it was though.
Here, in Joe, they have great technica, but the center is boring. In the great GI Joe show, all the best fun is with the evil Cobra villains, here they are sort of mild. I think they are trying to set up a franchise, because they are missing a few major evil characters. And the ones they have are off the mark to a great degree.
One major mistake -- perhaps the biggest of the movie, perhaps the one that sinks it: The Baroness. In the TV show she's menacing, cold, and Prussian, evil to the bone without any constraint.
Here, she's sort of a post-valley girl, probably had some "girls gone wild" moments in Lake Havasu, character who has scant connection with the original character. And she has very skinny legs -- not a criticism, but the original Baroness was something entirely different.
I'd recommend watching it, but don't think it really does much justice to the original concept.
Nice take on decades past -- in preface; the move is okay. But it doesn't quite capture the fun of the original. Maybe it's too much to ask to do so.
There is a rule, mine only I think, the "Star Wars Rule": In the original three movies, there was a "gee whiz" bang to all of them. Higher tech than anyone had ever seen before, including Space Odyssey. But at the center was a interesting group of characters, Han Solo and Chewbacca, R2D2 and C3PO, just fun to watch, even Luke, while Luke, and were interesting in how they interacted. The great lasers and such just made it better, it didn't make it what it was though.
Here, in Joe, they have great technica, but the center is boring. In the great GI Joe show, all the best fun is with the evil Cobra villains, here they are sort of mild. I think they are trying to set up a franchise, because they are missing a few major evil characters. And the ones they have are off the mark to a great degree.
One major mistake -- perhaps the biggest of the movie, perhaps the one that sinks it: The Baroness. In the TV show she's menacing, cold, and Prussian, evil to the bone without any constraint.
Here, she's sort of a post-valley girl, probably had some "girls gone wild" moments in Lake Havasu, character who has scant connection with the original character. And she has very skinny legs -- not a criticism, but the original Baroness was something entirely different.
I'd recommend watching it, but don't think it really does much justice to the original concept.
Who can say? Maybe being an American and utterly disgusted with this sort of Euro-Terrorism of the 70's to begin with, the sort where spoiled children rebel against the plenty they've been given, I find this far too forgiving of those fools who decided to kill for no apparent reason.
Perhaps European, or German, sensibilities can find something valuable or redeemable in the creatures portrayed here. I cannot.
When these homegrown German terrorists find themselves in prisons, it's a strange view from an American eye -- they seem in luxury. An American isolated prison cell is far from what is portrayed here. It is dank, and none too pleasant. Nothing like a gulag, but hardly like what seems here.
Perhaps the most disgusting thing about the movie, though I cannot say it is inaccurate -- I merely hope it is inaccurate - is the weakness with which the German government deals with these fools.
Perhaps European, or German, sensibilities can find something valuable or redeemable in the creatures portrayed here. I cannot.
When these homegrown German terrorists find themselves in prisons, it's a strange view from an American eye -- they seem in luxury. An American isolated prison cell is far from what is portrayed here. It is dank, and none too pleasant. Nothing like a gulag, but hardly like what seems here.
Perhaps the most disgusting thing about the movie, though I cannot say it is inaccurate -- I merely hope it is inaccurate - is the weakness with which the German government deals with these fools.
I'm betting, reading over the other comments about this movie, that anyone will care for what I type here.
This movie is boring.
Perhaps there is dictum about "artists" in cinema, that "if you don't like the art, you won't like the movie about the artist." Since I just made that up, I doubt there is anything specific like that, but there ought to be, or at least some thing approximate.
I don't like Jackson Pollock's art. I don't think that it is art. I think it's interesting splotches on canvass. But it doesn't mean anything to me. The colors are cool, the variations, the variegations, the structure of his paintings, are interesting. Art? No way. Not to me. I need to see an idea, and there none in Pollock's art.
This is all as prelude to a thought on the movie: If such a tortured soul as Pollock came up with basically interesting splotches of paint on canvas, then it seems to be a complete waste of a tortured soul.
There are long stretches in the film of Ed Harris as Pollock doing not much of anything, other stretches when he's being a drunken fool (urinating in a fireplace during a swanky dinner may be the way to establish a reputation as tortured artist, but in the end it's not exactly polite).
Ed Harris is a great actor, he really is. And it seems he's quite an admirer of Pollock. But what Harris is to acting, in my take, Pollock is not the same to painting.
I think people who watch this movie probably are artistry fans, which is to mean, loving art for the fact that somewhere, someone has called something "art." Even if it's abject garbage. Sometimes literally.
As from the beginning, perhaps it's the person in question: I like Mozart, very much so, and so I very much liked "Amadeus." I like the Doors, very much so, and so I very much liked "The Doors." Still I dislike John Holmes, and yet I liked "Wonderland" quite a bit. Whether Porn Stars rank with artists like Mozart is questionable, though less so when compared with Pollock.
Hence, perhaps this movie would be better were it about a better painter. Just throwing ink and paint and other fluids around does not a great painter make.
This movie is boring.
Perhaps there is dictum about "artists" in cinema, that "if you don't like the art, you won't like the movie about the artist." Since I just made that up, I doubt there is anything specific like that, but there ought to be, or at least some thing approximate.
I don't like Jackson Pollock's art. I don't think that it is art. I think it's interesting splotches on canvass. But it doesn't mean anything to me. The colors are cool, the variations, the variegations, the structure of his paintings, are interesting. Art? No way. Not to me. I need to see an idea, and there none in Pollock's art.
This is all as prelude to a thought on the movie: If such a tortured soul as Pollock came up with basically interesting splotches of paint on canvas, then it seems to be a complete waste of a tortured soul.
There are long stretches in the film of Ed Harris as Pollock doing not much of anything, other stretches when he's being a drunken fool (urinating in a fireplace during a swanky dinner may be the way to establish a reputation as tortured artist, but in the end it's not exactly polite).
Ed Harris is a great actor, he really is. And it seems he's quite an admirer of Pollock. But what Harris is to acting, in my take, Pollock is not the same to painting.
I think people who watch this movie probably are artistry fans, which is to mean, loving art for the fact that somewhere, someone has called something "art." Even if it's abject garbage. Sometimes literally.
As from the beginning, perhaps it's the person in question: I like Mozart, very much so, and so I very much liked "Amadeus." I like the Doors, very much so, and so I very much liked "The Doors." Still I dislike John Holmes, and yet I liked "Wonderland" quite a bit. Whether Porn Stars rank with artists like Mozart is questionable, though less so when compared with Pollock.
Hence, perhaps this movie would be better were it about a better painter. Just throwing ink and paint and other fluids around does not a great painter make.
but very close.
Can't think of one right now, but there has to be something filmed that's worse than this: bad writing, bad editing, bad directing, horrible acting, atrocious dancing (which the movie is sort of supposed to be about), the list is an endless "badness" festival.
Others have detailed how unrelenting the poor acting and directing and all the rest, so let's talk about the glimmers of the positive: Nudity. Man, Elizabeth Berkeley may be a dreadful actress and dancer, but she is quite a beauty, and has no problem wandering around in her all together. Which is actually quite nice.
Double that for Gina Gershon. Her character is quite unpleasant, but Gershon plays her quite pleasantly. And the fewer the clothes she has on, the better she is. And she has very few clothes on during the movie. So there is that. But she is a very likable actress, perhaps the most redeeming aspect of the movie.
In a dreadful series of awfulness, there are two standouts: First the tendency of Berkeley to splunk herself down on a car in ire, and Kyle MacLachlan with a sklopf of hair hanging down across his face most of the time. Very annoying.
This move should be shown in college film classes as how not to make a film.
Can't think of one right now, but there has to be something filmed that's worse than this: bad writing, bad editing, bad directing, horrible acting, atrocious dancing (which the movie is sort of supposed to be about), the list is an endless "badness" festival.
Others have detailed how unrelenting the poor acting and directing and all the rest, so let's talk about the glimmers of the positive: Nudity. Man, Elizabeth Berkeley may be a dreadful actress and dancer, but she is quite a beauty, and has no problem wandering around in her all together. Which is actually quite nice.
Double that for Gina Gershon. Her character is quite unpleasant, but Gershon plays her quite pleasantly. And the fewer the clothes she has on, the better she is. And she has very few clothes on during the movie. So there is that. But she is a very likable actress, perhaps the most redeeming aspect of the movie.
In a dreadful series of awfulness, there are two standouts: First the tendency of Berkeley to splunk herself down on a car in ire, and Kyle MacLachlan with a sklopf of hair hanging down across his face most of the time. Very annoying.
This move should be shown in college film classes as how not to make a film.
Movie is hard to judge insofar as it is so boring that I haven't made it through it's entirety yet. After three tries.
Meaning, it's so incredibly boring, it's hard to know how to explain it.
The characters are sort of funny: Brad Pitt as an irredeemable loser, Julia Roberts, not very attractive in this part, as a sort of scatterbrain, and various and sundry others and strange and violent. But still, no one all that interesting.
The thing just sort of starts on an "okay, I'll give it a try" to half way through "dear God, is this something I really want to spend my life on?" I'd skip it if I had to do again.
Meaning, it's so incredibly boring, it's hard to know how to explain it.
The characters are sort of funny: Brad Pitt as an irredeemable loser, Julia Roberts, not very attractive in this part, as a sort of scatterbrain, and various and sundry others and strange and violent. But still, no one all that interesting.
The thing just sort of starts on an "okay, I'll give it a try" to half way through "dear God, is this something I really want to spend my life on?" I'd skip it if I had to do again.
the makers of this wanted, it seems, to make a war movie of the same sort as "My Dinner with Andre." Meaning a of lot sitting around talking about such important subjects while the real business of the world gets done elsewhere. Though there is a nod about how the two worlds interact.
There is a minor aspect of the movie where two guys are stranded on a mountain fighting the worst people in the world (Taliban,devils, pure evil, whatever you want to call them, shadows in a snowy hell). But it seems so much an afterthought of the script. Most of it is the very much anti-war foolishness trowelling out junk that the mainstream media has been glopping up the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, Boston Globe, NBC news, ABC news, 60 minutes, the list is endless.
The movie is a series of discussions -- remarkable in their self references -- about academia, the media, and the politicians. And the condescending attitudes toward the poor helpless fools who actually fitht the wars the US ends up in.
The movie is contemptible -- not because of the acting, which is quite good, or the structure, which is okay, nothing wrong with a movie about talking -- it's contemptibile because of the contempt is shows toward America and Americans.
Others will disagree, no doubt. But here is where Hollywood shows what they really think.
There is a minor aspect of the movie where two guys are stranded on a mountain fighting the worst people in the world (Taliban,devils, pure evil, whatever you want to call them, shadows in a snowy hell). But it seems so much an afterthought of the script. Most of it is the very much anti-war foolishness trowelling out junk that the mainstream media has been glopping up the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, Boston Globe, NBC news, ABC news, 60 minutes, the list is endless.
The movie is a series of discussions -- remarkable in their self references -- about academia, the media, and the politicians. And the condescending attitudes toward the poor helpless fools who actually fitht the wars the US ends up in.
The movie is contemptible -- not because of the acting, which is quite good, or the structure, which is okay, nothing wrong with a movie about talking -- it's contemptibile because of the contempt is shows toward America and Americans.
Others will disagree, no doubt. But here is where Hollywood shows what they really think.
but it can't be.
It's just not that good. The writing is substandard. And the one thing that stands out is the weepy jazz soundtrack that is intrusive and annoying.
The basic plot, how the black drug runners in the ghetto relate to each other and to the Mob, not a bad idea. And the idea that Wesley Snipes gets sick of the whole thing and wants more from life. Not bad. In fact, Snipes is pretty good in the role. Almost everyone else is pretty awful.
It's interesting how lacking in interesting this movie is. Not much seems to happen except once in a while a gun goes off.
I think "New Jack City" is likely a better call, not nearly as stylish, nor as pretentious, but more solid as a story.
It's just not that good. The writing is substandard. And the one thing that stands out is the weepy jazz soundtrack that is intrusive and annoying.
The basic plot, how the black drug runners in the ghetto relate to each other and to the Mob, not a bad idea. And the idea that Wesley Snipes gets sick of the whole thing and wants more from life. Not bad. In fact, Snipes is pretty good in the role. Almost everyone else is pretty awful.
It's interesting how lacking in interesting this movie is. Not much seems to happen except once in a while a gun goes off.
I think "New Jack City" is likely a better call, not nearly as stylish, nor as pretentious, but more solid as a story.
