Change Your Image
rogulus
Reviews
Big Trouble in Little China (1986)
I only write these reviews purely from memory, so i might get some details wrong
Kurt Russell is a truck driver, either in San Francisco or in New York City or in some fictional large American city with a Chinatown district. He's got a friend who is ethnically Chinese. At some point along the way, they're in an alley and some other Chinese thugs engage them in a fight.
Somehow the plot moves forward to the point of Kurt, his friend, and Kurt's girlfriend Kim Cattrall all going into a warehouse connected to the thugs. One of the goons notices that Kim Cattrall has striking green eyes, and he goes off to tell The Boss.
The Boss has entertained a prophecy his whole life about a green-eyed maiden who is destined to be his queen. He demands that Kim Cattrall stay. Kurt and his friend object to this. But Boss has some magical powers, a bunch of musclebound henchmen, freaky solid white eyes with tiny pupils, and a distinct lack of empathy for anybody who made his movie debut kicking Elvis Presley in the shins in the movie "It Happened At The World's Fair" (1963).
Boss tells Kurt to leave at once. Kurt says, "No way, Jose." Boss says he'd better leave, and don't you dare call me Jose again because that's not culturally applicable! Hmmmm, maybe Boss didn't really say that. But it's my memory, not yours. Do your own movie writeup, you silly goose!
Anyway, some totally bonkers fights happen, including Boss floating above the floor like Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi hotfooting it to Mos Eisley, minus the idealistic teenager and the white-haired hermit and the landspeeder.
How did the movie end? I don't remember. But I'm sure it was a happy ending. Boss no happy.
All kidding aside, this movie really is a rollicking good time. Over-the-top crazy, but very fun. The Chinese mythology isn't accurate, but this isn't a documentary.
Spirited (2022)
Great twist on the original story, but overchoreographed and with too much forced diversity.
You don't watch a Christmas movie for its realism. At least, not usually. You watch a Christmas movie because it's supposed to make some kind of statement about the Christmas spirit and you also hope to be entertained at the same time. For that, "Spirited" achieves all it sets out to do. It took Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" and twisted it like a scrumptious sweet pretzel. I'm glad I watched it and I'm sure I will watch it again many times in the future. It's fun. That could be the end of my review and I believe many others would feel the same way.
But that's not the end of my review.
The songs and choreography started out really weak. That's OK. I don't hold Ryan Reynolds and Will Ferrell to the standards of the greats. Those two actors clearly put their heart and soul into this movie and it shows. For both of them, this movie is a big feather in their cap. They're not great at singing and dancing. But it's all about the joy of the effort, and they definitely did not embarrass themselves. They deserve applause. I applaud them sincerely.
But I have to say again that the songs and choreography started out really weak. If the songs and choreography stayed at that level throughout the movie, I would still have watched it through to the end but I would never watch it again. I've already said I know I will watch this movie many times in the future. That's because the songs got better. And when the songs got better, the choreography seemed to have risen with that tide.
If this is dancing in cinema today (or on Broadway today), I weep for the kind of beautiful and graceful dancing of the past. There was too much tap dancing that was all about banging shoes on the floor rather than creating music with the feet. There was too much loose (and grimy/leathery/dark) clothing on the dancers for any elegance to shine through. Too much stompin' and not enough tappin'.
It wasn't just the over-reliance on stomp-dancing. Some songs that would have been better presented with just a solo singer were accompanied by entire roomfuls of background dancers flailing their arms around trying to appear graceful. It might even have come across as impressive if the dancers were synchronized, but they were all doing their own individual dances. So the eyes are bombarded with 40 different dancers gyrating their bodies in 40 different ways, all the while you are supposed to be hearing the advancement of the story and of a character through a song. Too many assaults on the senses.
And the forced diversity. Oh the horror! Yes, it's 2022. That's the flavor of entertainment now. Forced diversity shoved down your throat, and not just in the primary romance of this movie. The diversity of the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future ... that wasn't a problem. But the forced diversity of the primary romance and of numerous other aspects of this production -- I'm thinking of you, "Visit To 19th-century London" -- was another thing that prevents this very entertaining movie from being one of the greats.
Anne (2017)
It's appealing! (without an E)
I wanted to love this adaptation. I really did. I love the fact that Executive Producer Miranda de Pencier cared enough about the property to put forth a serious effort at making an Anne for today's audience. The most positive thing I can say about this show is that Episode 1 meets any expectations that any Anne fan would want out of a 2017 production. Oh boy, did they knock that one out of the park! But oh boy, did they also slip up as the episodes continued .... not ceaselessly downhill, but significantly downhill nonetheless.
There are two ways to review any adaptation of any book: 1) in terms of fidelity to the source material either literally or in spirit, and 2) as a standalone work regardless of the source material.
When it comes to judging this show based on how faithful it is to the book, I'd also have to add that it's nearly impossible for me to do so without also comparing it to Kevin Sullivan's 1980's-era "Anne of Green Gables" starring Megan Follows. Although that adaptation had flaws of its own (some obvious production shortcuts, some amateurish acting), its screenplay and all its major actors (Anne, Gilbert, Matthew and Marilla) captured the spirit of the book so absolutely respectfully and charismatically that any liberties that were taken with the story are gladly forgiven. Adding Hagood Hardy's tone-perfect score to the mix takes the Sullivan adaptation from an "11" (11 because Megan Follows' portrayal is unbeatable) to a "12". An adaptation doesn't have to be completely faithful to the book for it to be successful, and Sullivan's adaptation proves that point. You simply MUST watch it. You're welcome.
So how faithful is this one to the book? Let's start off with the choice of a theme song: "Ahead By A Century" by The Tragically Hip. Rather than going for a period feel, the producers opted for an edgy alt rock song that emphasizes the choice to take a character from a 1908 novel and turn her into a character relevant to viewers in 2017. Proclaiming the character Anne to be "ahead by a century" actually is quite appropriate in some ways. In the original source material Anne is a gentle feminist, a character trying to establish herself in a male-dominated world by way of developing her own intellect and not being content with old-fashioned notions of expecting her to have no interests outside of domestic interests. Much like author LM Montgomery herself in real life, Anne was clearly a girl with ambition, determination and resoluteness in an age before society had yet to grant women the right to vote, let alone be comfortable with them being anything more than a housewife.
So there's nothing wrong with attaching the idea of being "ahead by a century" to Anne. But the producers chose to take this even further. They took this Anne ahead by a century -- they made her "relevant" to 2017 viewers -- by making her grittier. Can't avoid that word .... GRITTY. You can read all the descriptions in other reviews, but basically they've given her a much much darker backstory than LM Montgomery ever wrote and, to make matters worse, they made Anne a conscious liar and malevolent schemer in multiple episodes. I can see how the screenwriter could convince herself that this was in service of modernizing the character, of making Anne less saccharine than 21st century viewers might perceive the character to be. But this simply IS NOT ANNE. LM Montgomery didn't write a saccharine character; she wrote a character with very obvious flaws but simultaneously a character with enough of a conscience to never allow herself to be the liar and schemer that this Anne is.
The only way I can accept this whole series would be to think of this:
The character Josie Pye is a foil in the Anne of Green Gables series. LM Montgomery briefly wrote Josie Pye as Anne's nemesis, as a girl with negative characteristics who comes from a family full of members with overall negative characteristics. Not "evil" per se, but clearly written as a character meant to contrast with Anne. Subsequent adaptations of all kinds (films, TV movies, stage shows, etc) have expanded upon what Montgomery wrote and have turned Josie Pye into the character everyone loves to hate .... and that's not inconsistent with what Montgomery wrote.
So who played Josie Pye in Kevin Sullivan's movies? None other than Executive Producer Miranda de Pencier. That's it! That's how I can watch this! It's "Josie Pye's rendition of the Anne Story." This is the way Josie Pye would have told the Anne Story. Give Josie Pye a platform and tell her to tell the Anne Story, and this is what Josie Pye would have come up with. Josie Pye would make Anne a liar and a schemer and a brat and a mental case.
So, as much as I have some good things to say about the production (read on), my take on the whole thing is: "It's a mixed bag -- and if it isn't carried in just a certain way the handle pulls out."
Faithfulness to the book? Significantly faithful in some ways (overall storyline), delightfully unfaithful in some ways (some welcome additions, especially Matthew's "lost love" and expanding on the "Jerry" character who actually IS in the book but with a different last name), but unforgivably and nastily unfaithful by portraying Anne as having certain characteristics like being deceitful on multiple occasions and being outright mean to Jerry also on multiple occasions. I cannot imagine LM Montgomery being happy with these changes.
But ... an adaptation doesn't have to be 100% faithful to be successful, right? That is very true, so let's judge this show on its own merits.
First of all, the opening credit sequence animation is exquisite, accompanied by the aforementioned "Ahead By A Century" theme song that I'd have to say pairs really well with what this show really tries to be -- an "Anne" for this century, this 21st century. No complaints here. Love it ... love the opening credits.
The photography is stunning -- capturing the natural beauty of Prince Edward Island with the technical capabilities of the latest and greatest camera technology. I've been to Prince Edward Island and I can assure you that the land and the air are beautiful in ways that truly refresh the soul, and whatever you see on the screen does its best at transporting you to that little smile-shaped island in Atlantic Canada.
Amybeth McNulty is a good actress and she is definitely throwing herself into this role. Perhaps a bit too much into the role for my taste, but perhaps that's due to direction and writing. I don't have any real complaints about her. Unfairly to Ms. McNulty, my only real complaint about her is that she's not Megan Follows.
Matthew and Marilla are well-cast also. I love that RH Thomson (Matthew) has that "Road To Avonlea" connection with Kevin Sullivan (I'd like to think that Miranda de Pencier was delighted to have him onboard considering her own connection to Kevin Sullivan, having played Josie Pye when she was a teenager). True to this "gritty" adaptation, Geraldine James (Marilla) plays "stern" quite well, and she does the role proud.
And then there's Lucas Jade Zumann (Gilbert). It's a good choice as well. He plays Gilbert gently where he needs to be, and comes on strong onscreen when the situation calls for it. I might have some qualms about how his character has been written (how he met Anne in this version is one of those unfaithful adaptations that I don't really care for), but in general this actor and this role are rather well-paired. Thumbs up.
Supporting actors -- No real complaints. They're up to the task and frankly they all pretty much look better, what with 2017 sensibilities for what actors should look like. I'm talking to you, 1980's makeup people, I'm talking to you. In a few scenes the makeup is botched in my opinion (Anne's smoky face after a house fire and Jerry's bloody face after a mugging both look so fake), but what the hey.
Costumes and set design -- well done. Convincing.
Tone-wise, I'd have to say that for whatever tone they're going for, I'm not part of that target audience. Filmmaking wise, sure they create the tone they want to create. That's good filmmaking. But creative-wise, I just don't like that they CHOSE that tone. It's not Anne. But for a viewer who wants that tone, this is a well-made show.
Bottom line -- I'm happy to have watched this show and I hope they make more. But I really do hope that people don't latch onto this Anne as being THE Anne. People who really like THIS Anne aren't really my kindred spirits.
Thank you, Miranda de Pencier .... for better or for worse, I'm glad you wanted to make this and I'm glad you've made a good faith effort at this whole task with the level of respect that I do expect that you do have in your own heart.
7 out of 10 stars.
Anne of Green Gables (1985)
Some people just don't get it. DO get it ... you'll love it!
If you already know the story, then there's a very good chance you'll love this movie. It's a reasonably faithful adaptation of the novel. Purists might have reason to complain about the liberties that were taken and they would have a point. But all in all the producers done Lucy Maud Montgomery proud.
If you don't know the story and you're trying to figure out if you'll like this movie, don't go by what some reviewers are complaining about it. They might say that the script was horrible, that the characters spout Shakespearean lines in totally inappropriate situations.
What they don't get is that the young Anne Shirley is characterized as being heavily influenced by the literature she reads. She reacts to the misery in her life by losing herself in the romance of the works by the great literary masters. She sees tragedy on a grand scale where somebody else might see a moderate inconvenience. She's _supposed_ to overreact to things, because she's an impressionable young girl who projects the grandness of literature into her own humdrum life. The entire charm of the story comes in seeing how this poor girl interacts with the people around her with intelligence and with imagination -- perhaps TOO MUCH intelligence and imagination -- to the point of appearing to the "normal" townsfolk as being a weirdo, and of how the others come to appreciate her ways and how she learns how to deal with the real world.
Present that story in a package full of beautiful scenery, delightful performances, and a wonderful score and you've got the makings of a thoroughly entertaining movie.
I'll concur a bit on the comments about the acting. Some of the minor parts weren't acted very convincingly. But that's a small quibble. The major roles and most of the supporting roles were perfectly cast and perfectly executed.
Get to know the story for what it is and you're in for a treat. Young and old, male and female (I'm a male in my late thirties) ... just being a human being with feelings and with an appreciation for the beautiful little things in life should qualify you as a Kindred Spirit.
Get it. You'll love it!
My rating: 10/10 (take away a few points for a few of its flaws but put them right back in because of its overall charm)
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1988)
Respectful treatment of the C.S. Lewis classic, but today's audiences can't possibly be satisfied
Given all the allowances that any thinking person should give to this effort (it was made at a low budget for British television, it was made before the CGI-era, etc.), what it all boils down to is this: This is a watch-once-just-to-see-what-it-looks-like movie, but after you see it once you won't really want to watch it again. The kids are serviceable but not especially screen-worthy, the special effects are hardly worth mentioning, the animal/fantasy characters look like they came straight from an elementary school production (especially the beavers and the wolves), the music was minimal, Aslan was uninspiring, and the White Witch was either tremendously overacted or very badly acted (take your pick).
Give it points for being very faithful to the book (even more so than the 2005 theatrical version, which is QUITE faithful and respectful as well), but take away so many points for coming across as being lame and amateurish. Come on, even those who watched it back when it first came out must have thought it was lame even for the standards of its own time, didn't they? DIDN'T THEY?
King Kong (2005)
Not really a film review ... more of a nitpick
I'm not really going to give a review of the film ... why would you good folks really care what my opinion of the movie is? Just go see it for yourself. I'm irrelevant. But I will add in my two cents and say that for this movie to be ranked #147 (as I write this) of the top films of all time is overrating it a bit too much. But like I said, ya gotta see it for yourself. Sure it's worth the price of admission. ONCE. ;)
This is what my nitpick is: There's a scene where Fay Wray (oops ... I mean Naomi Watts) is literally juggling rocks for King Kong's amusement. She's doing all these fancy tricks and things (behind the back, under her legs, bending over backwards limbo-style, etc.), but as she's doing them the camera shows Naomi Watts' two eyes looking DIRECTLY at King Kong and not at the rocks as she's juggling them.
Now of course I know that the movie is not meant to be realistic, and I absolutely KNOW that Peter Jackson had MUCH MORE important things on his mind than directing that scene to absolute perfection. But for a movie with a $200 million budget, for a movie with so much attention paid to CGI and to the supposed fleshing out of the characters, certainly one of Peter Jackson's primary concerns was the suspension of disbelief necessary to immerse moviegoers into the story. A director achieves this effect by paying attention to the little things and letting the subliminal effect pay off by having moviegoers really believe the story on its own terms.
So by having a juggler do all these fancy tricks and NOT to have the juggler even looking at the items being juggled? That took me out of the story. Naomi Watts was CGI-juggling ... big deal.
It's a movie about a big ape. It's cute, and the Empire State Building scene with the biplanes was a grand slam. But it's still a movie about a big dumb ape. If you're already a big King Kong aficionado, you're probably going to love the movie. But if you're on the fence ... take a chance but don't expect much.
The Stork Derby (2002)
Good story, but poorly executed
Three things I noticed about this production:
1. As a previous poster noted, there was too much shouting.
2. It was too preachy. The storyline itself is enough to make one ponder, but the messages were pushed too hard.
3. Plot exposition was handled poorly. Characters had unnatural words scripted for them. I understand that the audience needs to know what is happening and which character is which, but too often one hears characters delivering awkward lines purely for the purpose of exposition. Subtitles explaining things would have been less distracting than characters using words that would not be used in normal conversation.
Someone Was Watching (2003)
A modest but well-made mystery/family drama.
I can't expect all movies to be like this one, nor would I want them all to be. Variety is good. On one end of the spectrum, there are the flashy, big-budget, action-packed films with iconic characters and unrelenting snappy dialogue. On the other end of the spectrum there are films like this one ... stories about ordinary people (albeit in extraordinary circumstances). With some notable exceptions, the characters interact with each other like normal people do: with some humor, with warmth, with disappointment, with anger, and with self-doubt and a desire to deal with life in the best way they know how.
This is a story about a family (father, mother, teenage son Chris) dealing with the loss of a loved one while on a family outing to a regular vacation spot: in this case, a daughter perhaps four or five years old. The daughter, Molly, disappears by a riverside while she was supposed to be supervised by her older brother Chris (who had fallen asleep while the parents went for a walk). The only sign of the girl is her coloring book floating in the river and she is presumed drowned ... "presumed" because a search-and-rescue diver fails to find her body in the deep waters and swift current of the river. The father and mother have -- with much difficulty -- learned to deal with the tragedy and have decided to move on with their lives. Chris is in just as much grief, but stumbles upon something that leads him to believe that his sister Molly did not drown in the river but was instead kidnapped.
Is Chris just feeling guilty because Molly disappeared while she was supposed to be under his care? Is he so desperate to absolve himself that he is willing to latch onto any thin thread of hope that his sister is really still alive? His parents discourage him from investigating further and feel that he should just move forward with his life as they have. But Chris' best friend Pat -- who has domestic problems of his own and deals with reality by taking risks and telling good-natured lies -- convinces Chris to see the investigation through.
Some parts of this movie are rather far-fetched (especially late in the film when a certain character pursues a station wagon while riding a bicycle and stays on the chase far longer than can be credibly believed), but such flaws can be overlooked.
Overall, this is a story well told about friendship and family. No matter how the mystery plays out, the relationships between Chris and his best friend, and between Chris and his parents are believable and well-acted. Megan Follows of "Anne of Green Gables" fame turns in a nice performance as a sympathetic waitress serving as a bridge between Chris and a skeptical County Sheriff who believes Chris is up to no good as Chris sneaks around with his friend Pat in their search for Molly.
Intended as a cautionary tale about parents keeping their children safe (and including as an extra on the DVD a message directed at children about how to STAY safe), this well-intentioned drama has suspense, mystery, and steady pacing to recommend it.
Sin City (2005)
For genre fans only
People say I'm too verbose. So I'll keep this review short and sweet.
You like the "comic book/graphic novel movie" genre, you'll love this movie. It's got style. Boy, does it have style. Does it have substance? Well, if you like the genre, then it's got substance. Substance o' plenty.
If you don't like the genre, then this movie is a total waste of time. Ridiculous situation after ridiculous situation after ridiculous situation. This is entertainment? How many times can characters take a licking and still keep on ticking? When you're eight years old, you need cardboard characters because you're not sophisticated enough to pick up on subtlety. When you're older than eight and still seeing value in characters like "the indestructible hero" and the "she-warrior with impeccable aim and inhuman dexterity" then I suggest that you, ummm, grow up.
Put me in the "don't like the genre" category. If you like the genre, then, well, there's room in this world for all kinds.
Equilibrium (2002)
Most compelling sequel since "Crocodile Dundee in L.A."
After the cinematic tour-de-force "Metroland," audiences around the world clamored for a follow-up. The chemistry between Christian Bale and Emily Watson was not to be denied. "What we gots to have here," said Joe Sixpack, "is a movie with a little less suburban angst and a boatload more of black trenchcoats, acrobatic gunfights, and kung-fu."
Director Philip Saville, in a canny bit of self-assessment, wisely handed over the reins to action-film extraordinaire Kurt Wimmer. And Wimmer delivers in spades.
As "Metroland" comes to a close, Christian Bale's character has just taken stock of his entire life. His youthful exuberance and plans to take the world by its horns have given way to suburban predictability and a future full of mind-numbing domestic bliss with Emily Watson. He's walking the tranquil sidewalks of his Suburb-From-Hell neighborhood in the middle of the night when Watson finds him and asks him, "Are you happy?" He declares with a smile on his face, "Yes, very happy" and returns home with her arm-in-arm. As Bale settles back into his bed and drifts off away from Metroland and into Dreamland, Bale's imagination soon sends him into the world of "Equilibrium."
No longer the wimpy corporate drone that he is in "Metroland," Chris' burning inner desire to break out quite naturally manifests itself in self-images of ass-kicking grandeur. Bale is transformed into John Preston, Enforcer Number One of a dystopian society where not only is John Preston a dreamless automaton, but *everyone* in the world is doomed to a life full of punching the clock and watching "Hello, Larry" reruns. There is no room for any kind of emotion or humor whatsoever (which is why "Hello, Larry" is so popular in that world).
Anyone caught thinking outside of the box and actually *feeling* anything positive is swiftly exterminated by John Preston. Not only are they put to death, but they are done so with physics-bending (and bone-cracking) kung fu. John Preston surely is NOT the man to mess with, not by a longshot. ALL emotion must be subdued. ALL happiness is forbidden. Since John Preston has succeeded so well in suppressing his humanity, the whole rest of the world is going to fall in line, thank you very much, so long as John Preston is there to make sure it happens. Even if it takes a little acrobatic ass-whipping to make it happen.
But don't forget ... John Preston is merely "Metroland's" Christian Bale dreaming away his fantasies. It is inevitable that wifey Emily Watson must enter the picture. Here in "Equilibrium" she is Mary O'Brien (is it any coincidence that if you rearrange the letters in her name, it spells "In my roar ... BE" ?? I think not). You see, Mary is the breath of fresh air that John Preston needs to become human again. It is in her presence that Preston learns what it feels like to feel emotion ... to smell the hint of perfume on her ribbon ... to tap his toes to the irresistible music of Beethoven ... to feel just how GREAT is really is to give those government goons the biggest WEDGIES of their entire lemon-sucking, brain-dead lives.
The last third of the film shows John Preston crazily slashing a path through the bowels of the Government Machine, wielding his samurai sword and shined-to-perfection-semi-automatic pistol with equal abandon and drop-dead accuracy. As he penetrates deep into the Mother of All Headquarters, he leaves no bullet un-shot, no ass un-kicked, and no enemy intestines un-exposed. This man has Emotion, and by-golly he's gonna let his hair down.
So the character from "Metroland" truly is happy. Emily Watson is his muse. Emily Watson is his reason for living (isn't she everybody's Reason For Living?). Life is good.
RUN, don't walk, to rent "Equilibrium." Two stars. Check it out.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Sound of Music II: Maria von Trapp was really a Nazi spy!
No, I'm not writing any spoilers about who Neo really is and what the Matrix really is. The point I'm making is that any emotional investment I might have made into believing that "The Matrix" was a fantastic movie (and I still believe that it was) would be wasted if I were to completely buy into the plotline of its sequel.
Supposing you were to watch "The Sound of Music" and you really cared about all the characters because you got the warm fuzzies. Then four years later Robert Wise decides to tell you the REAL story behind Maria von Trapp and exposes her for being a Nazi spy. Wouldn't that ruin your conception of the character as originally depicted if you ever decided to watch the original movie again? Wouldn't you decide to forget the sequel and just take the original for what it was, regardless of how the filmmakers continued the storyline?
That's pretty much my reaction to "The Matrix Reloaded." Accept "The Matrix." Reject "Reloaded."
"The Matrix" was a succulent cheesecake whose every morsel was to be savored. "Reloaded" is the stinking turd that came out afterwards.
Dung fong sam hap (1993)
If you don't already like HK cinema, this ain't gonna make you a fan
Good films are good films no matter where they come from. Bad films are bad films no matter where they come from. Just because this movie is a product of the HK cinema scene doesn't make this a good film. Do I have poor taste? Nobody can judge me on that. Am I just not open to filmmaking from any sources outside of Hollywood? I'd like to think so. But no amount of open-mindedness can give me the kind of taste to recommend a movie with lame stunts, very poor character development, weak humor and tedious mood music. The girls look good, but I'd rather spend 104 minutes looking at still photos of these ladies before spending another 104 minutes with this overrated waste of celluloid. Only for genre lovers.
Pumpkin (2002)
They warned me not to waste my time, but I wouldn't listen ...
Friends warned me that this one wasn't worth seeing. But I thought I'd show 'em. Especially after watching the first 20 minutes or so, I was preparing my "you don't know what you're talking about" speech. I so much wanted to find the value in this film that was right there below the surface, where only the smart people care to look. But there just isn't anything there.
This film tries to be thought-provoking and enlightening, but in my final analysis it is just as bad as any brain-dead teenage moron-o-fest. Retarded people are people just like you and me? Yeah, yeah, yeah ... I know that and I don't need a ridiculously earnest film to tell me so. And if you're going to make a ridiculously earnest film about the "Noble" Retarded Man (who I am sure is JUST as noble as the Noble American Indian and the Noble Black Guy) then at least hire real handicapped people to show up on screen. All I saw were a bunch of actors trying lamely to walk and move about like they imagined retarded people should be. That alone is offensive enough.
My final thought: I just watched "Death To Smoochy" and "Pumpkin" back-to-back and after doing so I can't decide which was the bigger waste of time. Does that tell you how bad of a movie this was?
I'm not your friend, but I'm warning you: "This one isn't worth seeing."