Okay... IF this was a rating system of 5, I would only give this movie a 3. That is because I only give any movie that I might want to go out and buy the DVD for a 5 (okay, I am an 'old guy' who hates the internet (AND movie theatres which no longer provide personal service at the wicket... going to a food counter to buy tickets??? Come on, how far do we take this human disconnect thing???). I only give 4's to those movies that I might feel inclined to go watch again, if and when they come back to a 'cheaps' movie theatre. This one would get a mediocre 3, why??? Well, my spouse told me she would give it a '5' (10) simply because Ryan Gosling stars in it. While I like Emily Blunt and the acting is 'awesome' in this movie, I found it dry in moments. It took time before the real action I was expecting from the start kicked in. Still, a good afternoon or evening out with the lovely gal or pal or whatever you's guys call yourselves in this era of confused identities. Nice to see a movie where the men are portrayed as men and some women can put them in their place, physically and otherwise, without reference to that 'sexual confusion'. While keeping sex out of the movie... Gee, I have almost talked myself back into watching it again, just to see Emily and ...???
Reviews
28 Reviews
Manifest
(2018–2023)
Only for Love...Sadly, Cannot Wait Until this is over
15 April 2024
Ironic that, as religion rents this planet apart, again, in the Middle East, my 'religion-involved!' spidey senses began to tingle as soon as my spouse and I began to watch this show, 'for her'. I am not a fan of 'science fiction' to begin with but, as an aging man raised by a wanna be 'christian minister', my life's lessons are that religious affiliation bears no merit in science or the evaluation of 'moral conduct'. What we do for love! I cannot wait for this series to be over so that I do NOT need to watch its references to 'divine guidance' that were too sickeningly evident to me from the start of this series. AAARREGHHH! PLEASE nail me to a cross, someone, to take this pain away!!!!
Fisk
(2021– )
Helen Fisk Should Be the New Standard for Sexiest Woman Alive
17 January 2024
I hate the legal profession so a TV series that pokes fun at the arrogance of these snobs, across all international boundaries, would be a hit with me any way... But Comedienne 'Kitty ...' writes a continuously stabbing comedy that includes a humble lawyer whom she portrays. After watching the first two seasons and being hungry for more of this delightful nonsense, we re-visited Fisks entire first two... because we have been unable to find anything of equal merit, so full of laughs as this small series. Can only hope that a third season of this show is arriving soon... Kudos to all of the actors who portray their characters so well... but, sorry, 'Ray', 'Helen' is the one I am really in love with... Don MacAlpine, Regina, Saskatchewan CANADA.
Paul
(2011)
Good fun
14 April 2023
Love it when a movie pokes fun in the right places. Love it when the acting is good and the sci-fi character appears real.
A good break from the stupidity of the last three years with sufficient intrigue and suspense to keep even this old guy and his gal awake.
Not recommended for young children (unless some creep has already having them 'love aliens'). Otherwise, good family fun with some side-ripping lines and scenes.
Not recommended for the conspiracy theorists. The humour in this movie may be lost by the fear that 'they' really are among us... and that we are all aliens in human bodies.
Yellow Card, anyone? (might require some knowledge of the European version of football to get that jab at Americans)
A good break from the stupidity of the last three years with sufficient intrigue and suspense to keep even this old guy and his gal awake.
Not recommended for young children (unless some creep has already having them 'love aliens'). Otherwise, good family fun with some side-ripping lines and scenes.
Not recommended for the conspiracy theorists. The humour in this movie may be lost by the fear that 'they' really are among us... and that we are all aliens in human bodies.
Yellow Card, anyone? (might require some knowledge of the European version of football to get that jab at Americans)
A worthwhile story that misses the main issue
12 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Good that Erin B was a rebel. Good that she stood up against a specific wrong. Wrong that real justice was not achieved and that this documentary makes Hollywood the sideline hero because Rebel, the series, began after a movie was made that earned accolades. A decade later, no one is answering why the people, whom Brokovich was supposedly fighting for, lost to a corrupt 'justice' system that protects profits over people, still. A general dilemma that reaches across borders that our big media is reluctant to challenge because they play the same 'influence' game with the systems (electoral and justice) that are supposed to protect all citizens from stuff like this. I watched two sessions of Rebel (the one about the TV hero version of Erin B winning a battle against a heart valve manufacturer). I would not watch another episode because it glorifies a 'justice' system that is not committed to protecting the truth over all other things... Erin B may have won an epic $333 million for the oppressed but the real victims???? Where is the justice for them? This malaise leads our international community into critical dereliction of duty to bigger issues when it comes to climate change, 'COVID' and other things where the truth matters more than corporate profits and large law suits. Don MacAlpine, Regina, Saskatchewan, CANADA.
Frank Serpico
(2017)
Cops make themselves the law when they are to uphold the law
9 September 2018
I cannot believe that there are only 4 reviews here a year after this landmark film came to be. I watched it on DVD, ironically only after the love of my life suggested I should after she had. Watching it, I cannot believe that there are reviews here which still carry the debate whether Serpico was a 'rat' or actually a rare man who knew and knows what morality is.
In time I hope to buy this DVD. That is because the message inside it, from Serpico's own mouth, applies across the board, not just to cops. Elected officials are to use our selection of them to lead, not rule. Lawyers are to use their position to uphold principled justice, not advance their positions over their own duty to the law, as a protectorate of rights and justice.
The whole of this planet's citizenry should sit down and watch this documentary. They should then ask what is the disease in our society that allows Donald Trump to declare that his position makes him above all laws, international and otherwise.
Near the end of this movie, Serpico insinuates what I loosely use in this title. However, he nails it on the head when he also suggests that the law is required to be applied in a manner where we are all equals, cop or not.
Others want to debate whether this film settles the issue that Serpico acted properly when becoming a singularly brave man who dared to stand up against corruption? Let them. When they do, they miss the fact that it is men like this to whom statues should be built instead of this imposed stupidity that stature in society, that is the wealth achieved, is a measure of modern morality. Serpico's simple approach to life and the value of this film is that both confirm that, despite their faults, it takes men like Serpico to define what moral, not perfect, behaviour truly is
In time I hope to buy this DVD. That is because the message inside it, from Serpico's own mouth, applies across the board, not just to cops. Elected officials are to use our selection of them to lead, not rule. Lawyers are to use their position to uphold principled justice, not advance their positions over their own duty to the law, as a protectorate of rights and justice.
The whole of this planet's citizenry should sit down and watch this documentary. They should then ask what is the disease in our society that allows Donald Trump to declare that his position makes him above all laws, international and otherwise.
Near the end of this movie, Serpico insinuates what I loosely use in this title. However, he nails it on the head when he also suggests that the law is required to be applied in a manner where we are all equals, cop or not.
Others want to debate whether this film settles the issue that Serpico acted properly when becoming a singularly brave man who dared to stand up against corruption? Let them. When they do, they miss the fact that it is men like this to whom statues should be built instead of this imposed stupidity that stature in society, that is the wealth achieved, is a measure of modern morality. Serpico's simple approach to life and the value of this film is that both confirm that, despite their faults, it takes men like Serpico to define what moral, not perfect, behaviour truly is
Snowden
(2016)
Dramatizing the documentary
17 August 2018
I am not one who, generally, likes to place any credence on the Hollywood excuse of dramatizing events to 'educate' the public. But, I am also one who is not inclined to watch Oliver Stone's genre of movies of any kind. This movie becomes an exception to that rule and only because of a chance encounter with it in a local library. Watching this movie compelled me to review the Snowden story. I tend to agree that this insistence that twisting the facts to make a movie more interesting is 'artistic license which often offends me. However, the results of this movie are that the people who are expected to diss it, for example, NSA overseers, do try to dismiss its value. I do intend, now, to watch Citizenfour, hoping that it will be truer to the truths behind the Snowden incident. What is disappointing is that this movie, with its astute references to the duty of every government employee, EVERYWHERE, to protect the truth and our freedoms over the motives of the entrenched elitists of our society, has NOT motivated many citizens on this planet to ask why the principles of the 1946 trials in Nuremberg are not legally protected in ANY OF our so-called 'democratic nations' on this planet. I am 66 years old, a former scientist who lost his job temporarily for daring to demand that the scientific truths I was responsible to be protected (in 1982). I paused from writing 'those books' which are my record as to why Snowden was indeed a principled man, no matter what the detractors say. Perhaps every viewer should watch this movie with the subtitles on and then ask why 'grand America', whose citizens seem to think like that 'fictional' NSA overseer, is NOT the protectorate of our freedoms and is, instead, silent to the very thing parts of this movie warn us about. In 2018, this movie, despite its shortcomings when it comes to dealing with the facts of the Snowden incident, should awaken ALL true 'democrats' to why a lawyer with constitutional training, Barack Obama, would summarily execute a distant murderer without trial (Osama bin Laden), justify this violation of international law and then become vindictive when the corruption of these partisan serving agencies is exposed by a whistleblower. This film is good at exposing the background dilemma which comes from making partisans, bound to their rich donors, above the law. Obama, this film reminds us, failed this planet and democracy so badly that we are left with a man like Trump, with a finger poised on dangerous weapons of mass destruction, 'for America'. It is sad that this movie seems to have failed us in opening up a debate which the subtitles do expose: when we suppress the freedoms that are compelled to allow criticism of those in positions of power, we do take this planet back to 1929. No matter what the lessons of Nuremberg are, which Oliver Stone appropriately draws into a movie which should compel greater citizen engagement in questioning all of this into 2018. Is it this movie which fails us or are we back to 1933 where journalists and others warned and the citizenry remained more interested in the theatre and movies? Don MacAlpine, Wolseley, Saskatchewan, Canada ... Live not in fear but in personal acknowledgement of the individual duty to protect the truth over self-serving interests of the powerfully positioned ...
The Color of Time
(II) (2012)
Art Versus SNORING
27 July 2018
Well, I cannot say that I have read any poems by the poet this supposed biography makes a record of. I did start watching it with my lady fair and, hence, saw great potential for an evening of respite and romance... after all, surely a poetic movie will 'do the trick'? Sigh... after ten minutes, my impatient partner pulled the video out of the machine. Sigh, so ,hence, I cannot write a 'spoiler' since I do not know if this poet nixed himself from boredom in the end... Darn! Now I will have to research Wikipedia to find out the real story of an apparently perverted but boring and snoring life's, if movies are to be believed. If one cannot make it past the first ten minutes, why even a '3' for this thing? Oh, I might have watched it to see how much truth there is to it. But, sadly, never got anywhere near to understanding the reason behind this movie in the first place. Lesson to movie producers out there? If you are making a movie for arts sake then let the populace know that its purpose is not to entertain... this one seemed intended to drag people away from the story of poetry by immersing us in the poems and not the real life story...That movie about Stephen Hawking did not immerse us into Hawking's every living moment and astounding words. By trying to do this with this poet, the movie failed.
Water for Elephants
(2011)
An emotional film to watch, with value as both entertainment and social message
1 April 2018
I re-watched this movie on DVD many years after seeing it in a theatre. I remembered its general plot but not the details. Contrary to the rating by 'the reel reviewers', I found the movie interesting in both its plot and in its acting. Yes, I would retain the movie for 'my collection' but also know that it may be a difficult watch for some. The violence against animals and others is disturbing and all too real for the history of our humanity, even to this day. But, there is a message of hope that makes the moment of difficult watching worthwhile to an extent. However, I ended up asking if the fairy tale ending makes this movie honest to the human nature that continues around this world. It can be a movie that should cause us to ask if we might ever start to recognize the moments when we should rise above base animal instincts to act like caring human beings, when it really matters and against the brutes who see fear as a right to exert power. Over humans or animals..
Going in Style
(2017)
Reviews from across the spectrum of injustice
5 August 2017
To understand how someone would rate a movie like this, one should know the history of the person writing the review. Bluntly, I am a guy in a now-15-year battle against the injustices perpetrated by partisans sponsored by partisans inside our financial institutions. I have a deep sense of loathing for all bankers and their eager employees. Yes, the lessons of my life are that the allegiances of partisan financiers with partisan lawyers makes the rampant injustices inside our societies prevalent. So, it is ironic that this movie popped up as first on the 'comedy' list options provided to me (at Google Play) on August 4, 2017. Seeking a fantasy respite from this world of increasingly greedy madness, I stumbled across a piece of art that fulfilled the role of art in modern society. Despite the irony that many bankers will dance in their condos as more money pours into their vaults because of 'escapism', movies like this can be appreciated, as long as they are not our ultimate escape. AW, but in our world, even the dissenter should have moments of respite from the harsh realities of this world of greed we are into. So, forget how the movie, in the end, gives some hypocrisy to those three old men who give us the fantasy of justice fomented through crime. All of this leads, as the title suggests, to three poor old men having the life of bankers, 'going in style', in the end. I gave it a 10 because, yes, it made me laugh, want to dance and even cry in parts. That is art and the art of comedy comes across in this movie. IF you are cynical about the role of greed in our nations, this is a movie that gives you fantasy escape. No, not all of it is 'credible in the real world', but neither is 'Star Wars' or those other fantasy flights that the movie art gives us. It is fiction. Nevertheless, it carries the theme of revenge against the unjust off so well with a good story line, good acting and just the right amount of suspense, comedy and anticipation that its 'weak moments', in the eyes of the most critical (whose best friends ARE probably 'bankers'), should be forgiven. By those seeking an hour and a half of good escape. For an hour and a half plus minutes, it was... and I just might end up buying the movie in the end, for a collection where I would pull it off the shelf when I need respite from the realities of our world of greed and injustice that I know we can change. Without the potential for violence, portrayed in this movie. So, I am glad I escaped with this. Now back to work trying to make a world of change. Don MacAlpine, Wolseley, Saskatchewan Canada
Amelia
(2009)
A movie on the merit of the story, for once
5 February 2017
I was a little surprised at all of the negative commentary here. I found the movie's acting appropriate. It told a story without being judgmental. Really, who needs to know the reasons behind why Ms. Earheart had two guys on the edge all of the time. The reasons seemed quite clear to me. She was a free spirit and on the move all of the time. She did what men did in an era when women weren't supposed to do what men did, flying or otherwise.
She challenged the limitations for women in the 1930's. Who needs excuses for that. And, she took a risk that would have won her big if she and her navigator had found that impossible island, and other factors had not played against her landing on it, instead of her disappearing into the ocean.
Yes, I was surprised to learn that she had a navigator on board because I had always thought she 'died alone'.
The story is told well. The filming, in my humble opinion, was cinematic and appropriately framed. I was disappointed to see that the film did not, apparently, win any awards.
It is also a love story of great interest in the end.
I applaud this movie BECAUSE it did endeavour to be FACTUAL instead of being on the edge of someone's perverted sense of fantasy or sexual voyeurism. I will be buying the DVD for 'my collection' on the merit of the story and documentation that comes along with movie...
An interesting story presented in a manner that maintained my interest throughout... the stars in this movie all performed the characters well, mimicking what is seen in the real life clips that accompany the DVD. To me, that bears more merit than seeking to entice the audience through titillating explanation of Amelia's sexuality. There is enough of that stuff available in other movies. For once, a movie that concentrated on THE STORY and not the story the sexually starved of our nation would have liked to have seen???
She challenged the limitations for women in the 1930's. Who needs excuses for that. And, she took a risk that would have won her big if she and her navigator had found that impossible island, and other factors had not played against her landing on it, instead of her disappearing into the ocean.
Yes, I was surprised to learn that she had a navigator on board because I had always thought she 'died alone'.
The story is told well. The filming, in my humble opinion, was cinematic and appropriately framed. I was disappointed to see that the film did not, apparently, win any awards.
It is also a love story of great interest in the end.
I applaud this movie BECAUSE it did endeavour to be FACTUAL instead of being on the edge of someone's perverted sense of fantasy or sexual voyeurism. I will be buying the DVD for 'my collection' on the merit of the story and documentation that comes along with movie...
An interesting story presented in a manner that maintained my interest throughout... the stars in this movie all performed the characters well, mimicking what is seen in the real life clips that accompany the DVD. To me, that bears more merit than seeking to entice the audience through titillating explanation of Amelia's sexuality. There is enough of that stuff available in other movies. For once, a movie that concentrated on THE STORY and not the story the sexually starved of our nation would have liked to have seen???
Miles from Home
(1988)
Snoringly Bad for what could have been a good story line
3 February 2017
A friend borrowed this DVD from a library in farming country Saskatchewan. Now, I was raised on a farm in Southern Ontario, lost to the same Farm Creditor shenanigans portrayed in this movie, so I have great sympathy for the story line. BUT, if these two idiots drank as much as is portrayed throughout this movie, when they should have been working the farm, then no wonder they lost it.
But after too many minutes of gnawing my knuckles, hoping that the hokey acting would end, I know why I never heard of this movie Miles From Home before . And I hope I never hear of it again
Okay, this movie killed time but I nearly died watching it (I am certain some rich movie reviewer has already copyrighted that line)...
God, I hope your evening was more entertaining take me out and shoot me a bunch of drunk farmers burning down farms because of Farm Creditors ? Could have been a good movie,should have been a good movie because it did start out right... burning a farm down because some fat creditor might get it? Every citizen who wants justice in our real lives sure could use this premise in real life... but hooo boy
Probably got its 5.7 out of 10 rating from the drunken cowboy-farmer population who would buy this thing and then donate ten to the local library and give it a 9 because they could get the sympathy vote after blowing their tellie apart when the evil bank manager shows up on screen???
Gere as a cowboy? Just did not work! Maybe it was the Buddhist Angst just starting to build in him. And Helen Hunt appearing on screen for five minutes to suck tongue with Gere Gee whiz, the earlier session with Gere in a trailer bedroom doing a trailer lady who was once a farmer and lost her farm for the same reasons? Sexual titillation for minutes and minutes (audio only, damn!) made Hunt's part with Gere totally ludicrous and irrelevant to the theme of the movie
Wheehaaaa, ride her cowboy! I was sayin' I mean, with the actress who appeared earlier in the movie and seemed to be one of the rare persons in this film who knew what the term 'acting' meant hard to say why Hunt was even in the movie, except maybe as a crowd draw via the billboard titles at the theatres No droolin', only dumb drawlin' in this thing
These actors obviously NEVER had to deal with the realities of this stuff farmers do face or they would have applied some real emotion to their acting situations...
For the moments that Gere did swing a gun around on screen, I was hoping it would turn into a real one, swing my way and put me out of my misery. Happened more than a couple of places in this movie...
Oh, watch it for some of the scenery and for that moaning and shrieking scene near the start but DO NOT go out and buy this movie, unless you are one of those kinda people who collects everything about Robert, oooopppps, Richard Gere.... seeeeee. Just proving how fast I wanted to forget who acted in this thing...
The first movie I have ever rated below 5 because I try to see the good in every movie.... hmmmmm, so why did I give it 3??? Oh, yeah! For the trailer park sex segment that should prove to guys that anything over three minutes might actually interest a real woman... So, it does have some sex education merit, I suppose...
But after too many minutes of gnawing my knuckles, hoping that the hokey acting would end, I know why I never heard of this movie Miles From Home before . And I hope I never hear of it again
Okay, this movie killed time but I nearly died watching it (I am certain some rich movie reviewer has already copyrighted that line)...
God, I hope your evening was more entertaining take me out and shoot me a bunch of drunk farmers burning down farms because of Farm Creditors ? Could have been a good movie,should have been a good movie because it did start out right... burning a farm down because some fat creditor might get it? Every citizen who wants justice in our real lives sure could use this premise in real life... but hooo boy
Probably got its 5.7 out of 10 rating from the drunken cowboy-farmer population who would buy this thing and then donate ten to the local library and give it a 9 because they could get the sympathy vote after blowing their tellie apart when the evil bank manager shows up on screen???
Gere as a cowboy? Just did not work! Maybe it was the Buddhist Angst just starting to build in him. And Helen Hunt appearing on screen for five minutes to suck tongue with Gere Gee whiz, the earlier session with Gere in a trailer bedroom doing a trailer lady who was once a farmer and lost her farm for the same reasons? Sexual titillation for minutes and minutes (audio only, damn!) made Hunt's part with Gere totally ludicrous and irrelevant to the theme of the movie
Wheehaaaa, ride her cowboy! I was sayin' I mean, with the actress who appeared earlier in the movie and seemed to be one of the rare persons in this film who knew what the term 'acting' meant hard to say why Hunt was even in the movie, except maybe as a crowd draw via the billboard titles at the theatres No droolin', only dumb drawlin' in this thing
These actors obviously NEVER had to deal with the realities of this stuff farmers do face or they would have applied some real emotion to their acting situations...
For the moments that Gere did swing a gun around on screen, I was hoping it would turn into a real one, swing my way and put me out of my misery. Happened more than a couple of places in this movie...
Oh, watch it for some of the scenery and for that moaning and shrieking scene near the start but DO NOT go out and buy this movie, unless you are one of those kinda people who collects everything about Robert, oooopppps, Richard Gere.... seeeeee. Just proving how fast I wanted to forget who acted in this thing...
The first movie I have ever rated below 5 because I try to see the good in every movie.... hmmmmm, so why did I give it 3??? Oh, yeah! For the trailer park sex segment that should prove to guys that anything over three minutes might actually interest a real woman... So, it does have some sex education merit, I suppose...
And So It Goes
(2014)
Moody comedy or Romantic reflection
22 September 2016
Okay, I get it about formal, paid critics, I think. They are poor slobs who have the envious task that every citizen in any democracy would want. Go to a movie theatre. Slop a little of the sugary sudsies down your top so that you can scratch it off with your finger later. And toss a little of that white fluffy stuff down the cleavage of your chosen partner of the evening. Then go home and write a cynical review. Because, sadly, the maximum ecstasy you were expecting did not appear. This is especially true if that partner you were hoping to shag, yawned and went home on their own instead of agreeing to make mountains out of mole hills by drinking real suds and sliding caviar down your gullet while both of you were wallowing through, yawn, 'just another movie' from your leather couch after watching 'just another movie' in a privileged theatre viewing.
And that is why I do not give a leaping leprechaun for what the 'real critics' write about movie reviews anymore. Oh, I confess that I might sneak a peak at a 'new movie!' review in, gasp!, a real newspaper before the public of viewers get to shag or rage about it on the ever present internet. But, for me, what matters is what the poor sods who clog our streets, scraping popcorn off the pavement to survive another day, have to say. Why? For us poor sods who are simply looking for a short escape away from our boring, or oversexed, lives (yes, the latter is me! Yeah, right! I did see a flying Leprechaun just swing by in the trees of my small town jungle!), a movie either means something or it doesn't.
In my estimation, this movie means something because it actually challenged my emotions... yeah, I even cried a little in parts of it, male hard guy that I am. It is well acted, at least enough so that it seems to have some possible realities in it while allowing us that little bit of fantasy we really, really need. And it is an easy watch with Diane Keaton in it, fulfilling the possibility that aging romance can actually be fun and sexy. And that it is a possibility because? I am old.
So, yeah, if I had Michael Douglas' apparent money bags, I would buy this movie and store it so that, one day, I could take it down and go soggy sentimental over the premise of the possibilities for 'true love' at any stage of our life that the movie tries to sell us.
Perhaps the problem is that whomever labels these things is some infamous flying Leprechaun who sits up in some tree and swings this movie's credits into a 'romantic comedy' when it is more about soft romantic reflection.
It did not make me laugh that much. But it did make me smile, and even with the memories of what love can really be, was good enough to mellow me out for one evening... and leave me hoping that I might have time, one day, to watch it again, not for the moody comedy it sometimes broke into but because, hey, I am a guy who even likes a little romantic reflection once in a while.
Even if I have not seen a flying Leprechaun lately.
And that is why I do not give a leaping leprechaun for what the 'real critics' write about movie reviews anymore. Oh, I confess that I might sneak a peak at a 'new movie!' review in, gasp!, a real newspaper before the public of viewers get to shag or rage about it on the ever present internet. But, for me, what matters is what the poor sods who clog our streets, scraping popcorn off the pavement to survive another day, have to say. Why? For us poor sods who are simply looking for a short escape away from our boring, or oversexed, lives (yes, the latter is me! Yeah, right! I did see a flying Leprechaun just swing by in the trees of my small town jungle!), a movie either means something or it doesn't.
In my estimation, this movie means something because it actually challenged my emotions... yeah, I even cried a little in parts of it, male hard guy that I am. It is well acted, at least enough so that it seems to have some possible realities in it while allowing us that little bit of fantasy we really, really need. And it is an easy watch with Diane Keaton in it, fulfilling the possibility that aging romance can actually be fun and sexy. And that it is a possibility because? I am old.
So, yeah, if I had Michael Douglas' apparent money bags, I would buy this movie and store it so that, one day, I could take it down and go soggy sentimental over the premise of the possibilities for 'true love' at any stage of our life that the movie tries to sell us.
Perhaps the problem is that whomever labels these things is some infamous flying Leprechaun who sits up in some tree and swings this movie's credits into a 'romantic comedy' when it is more about soft romantic reflection.
It did not make me laugh that much. But it did make me smile, and even with the memories of what love can really be, was good enough to mellow me out for one evening... and leave me hoping that I might have time, one day, to watch it again, not for the moody comedy it sometimes broke into but because, hey, I am a guy who even likes a little romantic reflection once in a while.
Even if I have not seen a flying Leprechaun lately.
The Wolf of Wall Street
(2013)
No moral compass here
30 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Okay. I confess. I watched this movie in a period when I am writing my own book about how 'business' greed has destroyed any premise of credible democracy. Therefore, while I found the acting good and the film entertaining, I am sick of Hollywood's hiding of its own guilt in this corruption.
Oh, yeah, I am one of those, I suppose, who found the focus on the sex and drugs a little overbearing. These scenes should not be censored. They are 'fictionalized, for the purpose of dramatization', scenes.
That I get. It is necessary for the producers of films to make certain that the audience does not fall asleep in what could be a boring documentary about how a Wall Street wannabe became rich off of corrupt practices. Apparently that means that we should watch lots of nakedness and drugged madness? Because it was based on a book written by the 'real wolf of Wall Street'? Ironically, I had watched the HBO film Spotlight hours before this one. That film I will eventually write a review for and give it a 10. Why? Especially when the friend who watched Wall Street with me also watched Spotlight and found it 'rather slow'.
Ironically, she had to abandon watching The Wolf with me because its focus on the depravity bothered her so.
I found Spotlight powerful because it had good acting and exposed a story of corruption with an attempt to stay honest to the duty of a documentary movie.
Oh, I know that movies are 'the right to make art' out of even 'real events'. It is sad, however, that, two decades after the Belfort case began to evolve, Wall Street remains responsible for bringing down international economies, on the basis of greed. Watch the movie Too Big to Fail that is based on the 2008 Economic Collapse. The same confession: that financiers and stockbrokers of 'America' get blind to moral duty when they are faced with big money, appeared.
What becomes more sickening is the research to the background story to Belfort's history. On July 30, 2016, the day after I watched the movie The Wolf of Wall Street, I stumble across this: Vanity Fair has a a July 26 report that is just starting to be 'picked up' by other media rags ['Wolf of Wall Street' Scandal Casts Wide Net of Suspicion]. Evidently a film corporation involved in making this film took public funds from Malaysia, on the basis of a loan for the film's production.
The article alleges that even Leonard DiCaprio was part of a gambling spree with Red Granite company officials in Malaysia. Investigating over a million blown on gambling? An amount of up to a billion of Malaysian, loaned public funds, are under investigation? I was already cynical about this movie. It insists that it is 'based on real events'. It falls into the depravity of too many modern films from Hollywood that claim to be 'solely for entertainment'.
Sorry. IF anyone is going to portray 'real events', then the events have to be real. Oh, show the level of depravity that Belfort and his gang of misfits fell into. But, the message of daily moral responsibility is lost in this film by its focus on Belfort's lustiness for good times.
Honestly, there are moments when the characters allude to the immorality of the main character. Belfort's 'first wife' raises this issue in a number of pieces of dialogue. And there are other moral challenges made.
However, what is missing here is the alternate side of the whole story. Oh, we see a concerned government agent enter the scene and we see the Belfort character eventually trundled off to jail. But, the difference is that HBO's Spotlight and Too Big to Fail also draw in the stories of the poor who end up on the street or suffering addictions that are brought on by the physical and immoral abuse of power gained.
Hollywood crows that DiCaprio acts very well in 2013. He and most others in the film do. The problem becomes that the film becomes one of the richer films of 2013. That means that a lot of people around this planet 'liked it!' The reality, therefore, becomes that many of those viewers will take in that final note that this film is 'based on real events'. To too many, it becomes a documentary film of real events.
That makes any subsequent honest record, one that challenges Belfort's version of events, something that will not be a necessary watch for the majority of citizens in our nations. Which means what? The Wolf of Wall Street? Watch it for its entertainment value. Cringe at some of the overblown focus on sex and drugs. But recognize that it is art reflecting on a sad man's life.
The greater message this movie fails to make full register of is in one sickening scene. Eager wannabe employees simply want to get what Belfort has: a super rich life style. They push into Belfort's building. They did so after Forbes magazine published a scathing article about Belfort's company's corruption.
Will the movie goer really reflect on what happened to the schmucks who lost their life savings in this farce? This is not even raised in the film's concluding graphics. Instead, we see a 'reformed' Belfort pushing his pen selling techniques on more sales suckers who want to get rich.
Question becomes: will the movie goer muse on the moral obligations or merely become one of the schmucks who so eagerly serve the agenda of the greedy for the sake of their own greed?
Oh, yeah, I am one of those, I suppose, who found the focus on the sex and drugs a little overbearing. These scenes should not be censored. They are 'fictionalized, for the purpose of dramatization', scenes.
That I get. It is necessary for the producers of films to make certain that the audience does not fall asleep in what could be a boring documentary about how a Wall Street wannabe became rich off of corrupt practices. Apparently that means that we should watch lots of nakedness and drugged madness? Because it was based on a book written by the 'real wolf of Wall Street'? Ironically, I had watched the HBO film Spotlight hours before this one. That film I will eventually write a review for and give it a 10. Why? Especially when the friend who watched Wall Street with me also watched Spotlight and found it 'rather slow'.
Ironically, she had to abandon watching The Wolf with me because its focus on the depravity bothered her so.
I found Spotlight powerful because it had good acting and exposed a story of corruption with an attempt to stay honest to the duty of a documentary movie.
Oh, I know that movies are 'the right to make art' out of even 'real events'. It is sad, however, that, two decades after the Belfort case began to evolve, Wall Street remains responsible for bringing down international economies, on the basis of greed. Watch the movie Too Big to Fail that is based on the 2008 Economic Collapse. The same confession: that financiers and stockbrokers of 'America' get blind to moral duty when they are faced with big money, appeared.
What becomes more sickening is the research to the background story to Belfort's history. On July 30, 2016, the day after I watched the movie The Wolf of Wall Street, I stumble across this: Vanity Fair has a a July 26 report that is just starting to be 'picked up' by other media rags ['Wolf of Wall Street' Scandal Casts Wide Net of Suspicion]. Evidently a film corporation involved in making this film took public funds from Malaysia, on the basis of a loan for the film's production.
The article alleges that even Leonard DiCaprio was part of a gambling spree with Red Granite company officials in Malaysia. Investigating over a million blown on gambling? An amount of up to a billion of Malaysian, loaned public funds, are under investigation? I was already cynical about this movie. It insists that it is 'based on real events'. It falls into the depravity of too many modern films from Hollywood that claim to be 'solely for entertainment'.
Sorry. IF anyone is going to portray 'real events', then the events have to be real. Oh, show the level of depravity that Belfort and his gang of misfits fell into. But, the message of daily moral responsibility is lost in this film by its focus on Belfort's lustiness for good times.
Honestly, there are moments when the characters allude to the immorality of the main character. Belfort's 'first wife' raises this issue in a number of pieces of dialogue. And there are other moral challenges made.
However, what is missing here is the alternate side of the whole story. Oh, we see a concerned government agent enter the scene and we see the Belfort character eventually trundled off to jail. But, the difference is that HBO's Spotlight and Too Big to Fail also draw in the stories of the poor who end up on the street or suffering addictions that are brought on by the physical and immoral abuse of power gained.
Hollywood crows that DiCaprio acts very well in 2013. He and most others in the film do. The problem becomes that the film becomes one of the richer films of 2013. That means that a lot of people around this planet 'liked it!' The reality, therefore, becomes that many of those viewers will take in that final note that this film is 'based on real events'. To too many, it becomes a documentary film of real events.
That makes any subsequent honest record, one that challenges Belfort's version of events, something that will not be a necessary watch for the majority of citizens in our nations. Which means what? The Wolf of Wall Street? Watch it for its entertainment value. Cringe at some of the overblown focus on sex and drugs. But recognize that it is art reflecting on a sad man's life.
The greater message this movie fails to make full register of is in one sickening scene. Eager wannabe employees simply want to get what Belfort has: a super rich life style. They push into Belfort's building. They did so after Forbes magazine published a scathing article about Belfort's company's corruption.
Will the movie goer really reflect on what happened to the schmucks who lost their life savings in this farce? This is not even raised in the film's concluding graphics. Instead, we see a 'reformed' Belfort pushing his pen selling techniques on more sales suckers who want to get rich.
Question becomes: will the movie goer muse on the moral obligations or merely become one of the schmucks who so eagerly serve the agenda of the greedy for the sake of their own greed?
Two of Us
(2000 TV Movie)
Almost Spooky
17 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
A well written fictional account of a meeting most Beatles fans would hope really happened, this movie is almost spooky in how real the John Lennon and John McCartney character actors portray these two infamous men. The movie contains dialogue, gestures and characteristics of these two real men that I remember too well. The writing and the acting makes the television movie a believable possibility that does not come across as trite or manipulative. It comes across as an honest intent to be a fly on the wall in an era when both men were finally getting comfortable with being themselves, no longer really needing the Beatles to carry their lives. The hope that they ended up being friends as the movie portrays, after some bitter battles that ended the Beatles as a band, becomes believable. The only negative about the version that I saw was that it was freed of ads but the 'ad breaks' were much too obvious, breaking the flow of the movie in some places. But, having borrowed the movie, I would buy the thing just so that when I get really really really old I can fantasize that I can be perpetually young because 'I knew those two!'
It needed to be made, no matter what the experts say
11 March 2016
Perhaps because I did not see the 1987 version, I found this 2010 version a compelling watch. Perhaps because I was in private business and found the 2008 meltdown too predictable, I found 'just another' movie about greed a compelling watch. And, no, I did not find the main lady unfeminine as another reviewer apparently did. Carey Mulligan added a depth of vulnerability and sexuality that came across with good acting, not naked exposure. Beauty is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder. While I have lost that admiration I once had for Michael Douglas, I found his and the other actors' performances most entertaining. I would be more compelled to give this movie a nine because its story and filming drew me in. I found none of it boring but maybe that was because I found the reality of its various characters too real in comparison to characters I met on both sides of that Canadian border in business life before this economic meltdown happened. Perhaps the movie is not so sincere because it portrays real tyrants as being made accountable in the end. That is yet to happen in the real world. But the irony is in what happened after I bought this DVD as a Blu-ray/Digital copy package as a 'collector's edition'. Yup, good old greed came to play as the Fox corporation made great promises on its packaging about how this movie could be played on all of my personal devices. And then Fox tried to shut down its use after I had downloaded only one copy with their special 'registration code'. As if I were in this movie, I had to challenge FDC about false advertising. Bankers. Business. False promises to the endless benefits we will accrue. Sad parallels remain in our world. Ironic that this is a movie about greed and what is essentially false advertising about the ethics of our big businesses. Oh, perhaps I should bump the rating up to 10 because, really, the movie expresses emotions about betrayal and dishonesty in such a pretty way that it is really a continuing statement of the hypocrisies of big business. That these people still have to be challenged to be true to their word instead of becoming just another proponent of greed? This movie should cause all of us to pause to ask: am I really just another enabling part of all of this? A beautifully filmed movie in interesting locations, if nothing else. But all else, especially the acting, came together to make this a movie that really mattered in the end to me. Fiction? Yes, I am glad that I bought the movie and after watching it twice to catch all of the hidden nuances, I do know that I will watch it again. After I cool down about Fox playing their own dirty business games.
Silent Night
(2002 TV Movie)
Riveting but also disappointing
14 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Another DVD movie that a friend suggested I watch, it is a movie that I would buy for its message. What is disappointing about a movie that I would otherwise rate nearer 10 for the acting, intrigue and drama is that this is yet another movie 'from Hollywood' that really twists the truth to sell a movie.
One need only look up the history of one real character, Fritz Vincken. Vincken is portrayed as a young German boy who witnesses a surreal event that is sponsored by his German mother on Christmas Eve, 1944. Persuading American soldiers to make her temporary home a place of neutral refuge on Christmas Eve, she risks execution for treason. The truth is that a German patrol then arrives at the same isolated cabin, agrees to a night of no guns, and actually sups with and helps a wounded American soldier. Both factions then go off in opposite directions to resume the fighting while leaving the boy and mother to survive an incredibly stupid war.
The 'based on facts' portrayal in this movie immediately falls apart IF we understand that neither the mother nor the boy understood English. One American soldier spoke French. The German mother also did. This helped in the real situation in the end. Frantic arm waving changed into some words of understanding.
Knowing this base fact and the fact that the 'Hollywood' version goes to great extravagance to dramatize the situation may diminish the value of this movie as a record of history. Its value is in the dialogue and emotion. Once again, we have another movie that portrays why our world stumbles along in vast international murder because we have lost all common sense to what our moral duty to each other is.
This movie is good in that it does not sell 'Jesus Christ' and Christmas as 'the reason for the season'. It simply illustrates what the bravery of one lady, without a gun, can do to end the senseless killing we seem bent on repeating despite these lessons from our human history.
That small fact makes this not-so-fact-based movie still worth watching. I am not so certain that the surviving German son's 1997 interview (by a Honolulu high school student) as to what really happened would make a 'block buster movie'. Still, I will buy this DVD in the end for the compelling messages in the movie.
We need to start to heed messages from movies like this to make this world a better place for generations to come.
One need only look up the history of one real character, Fritz Vincken. Vincken is portrayed as a young German boy who witnesses a surreal event that is sponsored by his German mother on Christmas Eve, 1944. Persuading American soldiers to make her temporary home a place of neutral refuge on Christmas Eve, she risks execution for treason. The truth is that a German patrol then arrives at the same isolated cabin, agrees to a night of no guns, and actually sups with and helps a wounded American soldier. Both factions then go off in opposite directions to resume the fighting while leaving the boy and mother to survive an incredibly stupid war.
The 'based on facts' portrayal in this movie immediately falls apart IF we understand that neither the mother nor the boy understood English. One American soldier spoke French. The German mother also did. This helped in the real situation in the end. Frantic arm waving changed into some words of understanding.
Knowing this base fact and the fact that the 'Hollywood' version goes to great extravagance to dramatize the situation may diminish the value of this movie as a record of history. Its value is in the dialogue and emotion. Once again, we have another movie that portrays why our world stumbles along in vast international murder because we have lost all common sense to what our moral duty to each other is.
This movie is good in that it does not sell 'Jesus Christ' and Christmas as 'the reason for the season'. It simply illustrates what the bravery of one lady, without a gun, can do to end the senseless killing we seem bent on repeating despite these lessons from our human history.
That small fact makes this not-so-fact-based movie still worth watching. I am not so certain that the surviving German son's 1997 interview (by a Honolulu high school student) as to what really happened would make a 'block buster movie'. Still, I will buy this DVD in the end for the compelling messages in the movie.
We need to start to heed messages from movies like this to make this world a better place for generations to come.
Waiting to Exhale
(1995)
Hilarious in Parts
19 January 2016
1995 was a year of the awakening of women, in general. At least an awakening that they were in an era where they were not beholden to be 'like momma'. I never saw this movie on the big screen. That was probably because it came out only two years after I had ended my own affair. I suppose that, in 1995, the angst of dealing with infidelity did not make one want to watch a movie that includes a lot of infidelity. In the end, as became my lesson in life, the movie is about four different women dealing with male problems in different ways. So, watching this movie some two decades after going through a healing process, I could laugh at the realities that were portrayed while celebrating that being alive leads us through various situations because we are indeed different as men and women. The movie is, therefore, while old and not a break down the door to see event, worth the watch.... as a chick flick or a guy 'bin there and was arrogant/insensitive like that' reflection
The Letter
(IV) (2012)
Only if you are waiting for paint to dry
19 January 2016
Okay... I like movies that challenge me to think. But boring me to death as they lead me, an hour later, to pause it because, by god, both my date and I have fallen asleep...?
Art? Yes, this movie is art BUT, I would rather look at some paintings on a wall.... and watch the paint dry... And this review page requiring me to write 10 lines of review on a movie that can be summarized in five lines is almost as bad as being subjected to this movie in the first place.
Pretty Winona and all of the pretty men in this movie did not compensate for the loss of realization by the production people that the art of movies must have some emotional rewards or they are merely nice paintings 'on celluloid".
Good acting, I suppose, given the demands of this movie's intent to puzzle and intrigue. But endless weaK intrigue and puzzling dialogue with brief hints of the final analysis dd nothing to stop my eyelids from dropping shut. The reality is, me thinks, that most of us will find this movie as something we might add to 'an art collection' that would never make it to our display walls. This would be because we would fear too many of our friends actually beating their head, in frustration, upon 'the painting' so that they would never be subjected to it again... or so curious to watch it again and again, to find 'what did I miss'?, that they finally awaken to realize that they have just wasted hours of their lives.
Or, perhaps, awakening to the realization that this was boring art is not a waste of time for others? It was to me. A movie I would not have wasted my time on had I visited this review page first...
Art? Yes, this movie is art BUT, I would rather look at some paintings on a wall.... and watch the paint dry... And this review page requiring me to write 10 lines of review on a movie that can be summarized in five lines is almost as bad as being subjected to this movie in the first place.
Pretty Winona and all of the pretty men in this movie did not compensate for the loss of realization by the production people that the art of movies must have some emotional rewards or they are merely nice paintings 'on celluloid".
Good acting, I suppose, given the demands of this movie's intent to puzzle and intrigue. But endless weaK intrigue and puzzling dialogue with brief hints of the final analysis dd nothing to stop my eyelids from dropping shut. The reality is, me thinks, that most of us will find this movie as something we might add to 'an art collection' that would never make it to our display walls. This would be because we would fear too many of our friends actually beating their head, in frustration, upon 'the painting' so that they would never be subjected to it again... or so curious to watch it again and again, to find 'what did I miss'?, that they finally awaken to realize that they have just wasted hours of their lives.
Or, perhaps, awakening to the realization that this was boring art is not a waste of time for others? It was to me. A movie I would not have wasted my time on had I visited this review page first...
Changing Lanes
(2002)
Fast Moving and Honest Fiction
1 November 2015
This DVD was gifted to me by a friend a couple of years ago. It is a keeper. I do not watch it obsessively but pulled it out for a second watch after watching Woman in Gold.
Changing Lanes may be fiction but it is honest to the corruption that is in our 'legal profession'. I say this as someone who has been battling partisan lawyers since 2002.
Changing Lanes accurately portrays how lawyers have fallen out of their role of protecting the truth and justice, into making the money all that counts.
The movie is fast paced, full of twists and turns and moral themes that are challenging. A rich lawyer dealing with an accidental encounter with a down and out man who is trying to return to having personal dignity becomes a good story about how the rich lawyer learns a lesson in what justice really is.
This movie may be fiction but it is more honest to what 'the system' has created. I am hopeful that a movie like this might move citizens away from what the writers suggest in the clip provided with additional features. We need to move away from 'acting better when in vehicle accidents' to really challenging the corruption that starts with our legal professionals inside our nations.
I remain skeptical about society's possibilities in rising up from the couch after watching this movie, that ends up with a good message for 'our highest'. Oh, Google my name below to understand why I like this fictional portrayal of the realities that apply to 'lawyers', all but know that the motives of 'getting rich', as portrayed in the Woman In Gold, have overwhelmed our social responsibilities.
Changing Lanes, being made when 9/11 happened, becomes a better portrayal of what our personal responsibilities should be... rich lawyer or not... A movie that will remain in my collection for this reason alone, even if I never watch it again.
Don MacAlpine, Wolseley, Saskatchewan, Canada
Changing Lanes may be fiction but it is honest to the corruption that is in our 'legal profession'. I say this as someone who has been battling partisan lawyers since 2002.
Changing Lanes accurately portrays how lawyers have fallen out of their role of protecting the truth and justice, into making the money all that counts.
The movie is fast paced, full of twists and turns and moral themes that are challenging. A rich lawyer dealing with an accidental encounter with a down and out man who is trying to return to having personal dignity becomes a good story about how the rich lawyer learns a lesson in what justice really is.
This movie may be fiction but it is more honest to what 'the system' has created. I am hopeful that a movie like this might move citizens away from what the writers suggest in the clip provided with additional features. We need to move away from 'acting better when in vehicle accidents' to really challenging the corruption that starts with our legal professionals inside our nations.
I remain skeptical about society's possibilities in rising up from the couch after watching this movie, that ends up with a good message for 'our highest'. Oh, Google my name below to understand why I like this fictional portrayal of the realities that apply to 'lawyers', all but know that the motives of 'getting rich', as portrayed in the Woman In Gold, have overwhelmed our social responsibilities.
Changing Lanes, being made when 9/11 happened, becomes a better portrayal of what our personal responsibilities should be... rich lawyer or not... A movie that will remain in my collection for this reason alone, even if I never watch it again.
Don MacAlpine, Wolseley, Saskatchewan, Canada
Woman in Gold
(2015)
Failing, Again the Term 'Justice'
27 October 2015
Okay, yes, this is a movie that I might buy, BUT I am left pondering if I should or would.
Yes, it is well produced, enticing to watch and is a fairly (accurate?) portrayal of circumstances from our human history.
But, the movie left me aching about the shallowness of 'Hollywood' when it comes to dealing with the word 'justice'. IF you take the time to watch the bonus features that come with the DVD, the actors and producers pat themselves on the back for portraying another story where justice is actually served. At least, in the eyes of the rich from our society.
Oh, so watch the movie. It is, mostly, worth the time for the scenery and the quality of acting. But then take some moments afterward to wonder why it is that we are so 'feel good' about human history that registers another lawyer whose first motive was not 'justice' but for the fact that he might make some big money after returning one painting, worth over "$100 million", back to its rightful owners.
So, what. The real people in life took some of that money and donated it to charities and 'holocaust memorials'? Answer me this.
When do we get the movie that addresses this issue: ponder why it must only be multi-million paintings that equate 'justice' for too many in our society whilst we fail to ask how we ensure that the poor among us, today, gain real justice? WE forget the man, woman and child who was too poor to escape such things and whose teeth became the gold bricks that continue to tarnish this world of 'the rich' only being the ones to have a right to justice. Because they have 'gold'.
That is why I left watching this movie feeling despondent. When do WE stop building memorials to holocausts and start BUILDING institutions of democracy that are indeed FOR the poor, on the basis of 'equal before and under the law'?
That is a problem that Hollywood is too reluctant to address because it would challenge their own rich perceptions.
So, watch the movie but watch it with open eyes to its ultimate hypocrisy: it is just another movie about the rich gaining the right to a word poor people are still denied, despite the lessons from what caused the events of 'the Woman in Gold' to transpire.
And that is the saddest comment for our societies of 2015. This movie fails because it glitters with gold.
Don MacAlpine, Wolseley, Saskatchewan, Canada
Yes, it is well produced, enticing to watch and is a fairly (accurate?) portrayal of circumstances from our human history.
But, the movie left me aching about the shallowness of 'Hollywood' when it comes to dealing with the word 'justice'. IF you take the time to watch the bonus features that come with the DVD, the actors and producers pat themselves on the back for portraying another story where justice is actually served. At least, in the eyes of the rich from our society.
Oh, so watch the movie. It is, mostly, worth the time for the scenery and the quality of acting. But then take some moments afterward to wonder why it is that we are so 'feel good' about human history that registers another lawyer whose first motive was not 'justice' but for the fact that he might make some big money after returning one painting, worth over "$100 million", back to its rightful owners.
So, what. The real people in life took some of that money and donated it to charities and 'holocaust memorials'? Answer me this.
When do we get the movie that addresses this issue: ponder why it must only be multi-million paintings that equate 'justice' for too many in our society whilst we fail to ask how we ensure that the poor among us, today, gain real justice? WE forget the man, woman and child who was too poor to escape such things and whose teeth became the gold bricks that continue to tarnish this world of 'the rich' only being the ones to have a right to justice. Because they have 'gold'.
That is why I left watching this movie feeling despondent. When do WE stop building memorials to holocausts and start BUILDING institutions of democracy that are indeed FOR the poor, on the basis of 'equal before and under the law'?
That is a problem that Hollywood is too reluctant to address because it would challenge their own rich perceptions.
So, watch the movie but watch it with open eyes to its ultimate hypocrisy: it is just another movie about the rich gaining the right to a word poor people are still denied, despite the lessons from what caused the events of 'the Woman in Gold' to transpire.
And that is the saddest comment for our societies of 2015. This movie fails because it glitters with gold.
Don MacAlpine, Wolseley, Saskatchewan, Canada
Last Days of the Nazis
(2015– )
Awakening a Citizenry to Personal Responsibilities?
18 September 2015
"Who is responsible?" Ironically. Or tragically? I am returning to my isolated home from a visit to another 'Medical Professional' when my friendly driver insists that I should watch another video, 'based on real interviews from our human history'. Ironically, this is insisted upon in the same minutes that it is revealed that a blood son of this person's, who works for a federal agency that I started fighting into Canada's courts in 2002, said that he was 'tired' of these repetitive movies and documentaries about what happened in our world to 1945. Why did this mature adult, who insists that Liberal media tycoon, Ralph Goodale, a candidate in the Canadian federal election of 2015, is the epitome of 'good leadership', say he was tired? Because "there have been as tragic events in our world since 1945!"
Hmmm... Goodale is part of the Liberal Party of Canada who ordered my arrest in February 2004. Why? Because 'Independent' I had dared to challenge that elected lawyers had entered what Canada's Criminal Code forbade because of events that happened to 1945. For two long years, as an 'independent citizen', I had warned Canadian 'legal professionals' to get the partisans out of Canada's courts where I was complaining about the conduct of partisans.
"As tragic events in our world since 1945"? Really? Where have 6 million citizens, including dissenting citizens, not just 'those Jews', disappeared into a deliberate system created to remove the right to life of any person, in violation of international law? Oh, there have been mass murders of tragic proportion that continue around this world. But the bigger question is what creates the background to these situations that should never recur, if 1945 were really treated as a credible lesson to what our personal responsibilities are?
So, yes, I sat down to watch Last Days of the Nazis, a History Channel production. As a summary description, apparently written by a person who identifies him or herself as a 'showrunner', apparently from the History Channel, says at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=215174 , the series "... is a story that's rarely been broadcast on television before. This is a dark and compelling history of Nazism from a different perspective – that of the Nazis themselves. In 1945, the Allies rounded up and interrogated thousands of ex-Nazis. The interrogations became a fascinating, but largely forgotten, part of the historical record. The Last Days of the Nazis uses these interrogations to dramatically bring to life accounts by Nazi death camp commandants, Nazi doctors, generals, architects, and members of the Hitler Youth. It is an inside look at the minds and motivations of the most evil regime in history. This is what the enemy told us. ...".
I agreed with some comments then made about the series at that web page. It is frustrating to watch actors appear to mouth the English translations of interrogations of various Nazis from that era. As one commentator suggested, voice overs with less repetition from these historic characters, would have worked better, especially on a DVD version.
Nevertheless, the DVD would be something that I would buy, 'just for the record', and then seek out the books that tell the whole story behind these interrogations and the subsequent documentary footage. The program is worth a watch because, in the end, it leads to an interview with a lady who was a leader in the Hitler Youth. Initially, she admits in the interrogation, she was offended when the Allies, who incarcerated her and her Nazi Youth friends inside 'rehabilitation camps' for nearly three years, posted posters even in the mess tents where these young adults ate. Said Melita Meschmann, initially she was offended. The posters included pictures of what had been discovered at Buchenwald.
Initially, she insisted that they were "faked photos", created by the new camps of Allied concentrated indoctrination. Like Hitler Youth enthusiast, Armin Lehmann (who was the son of a SS Officer of high rank in the German army),many Hitler Youth carried doubts, thinking the American film was Allied propaganda.
Apparently the interrogation records for young Lehmann reveal that he attended a film that documented what Americans did not see until the movie Judgement at Nuremberg used real footage to discuss this era in American movie theatres in the early 1960's. Lehmann recounts an aging German war vet leaning over during the the American Army's film session he attended. "Hollywood!", Lehmann says the old man whispered fiercely.
But, both Lehmann and Meschmann eventually admit that they came to the realization that these things had really, tragically happened. Why? Because both said that they knew that the mountains of bodies and opaque skin could not have been staged.
The good thing about this documentary? It ends up presenting the posters that poised to the citizens of Germany, below these horrific records and images, the question: "Who is responsible?" And uses these interrogations to incriminate those who tried to put the blame for all of this blood and mayhem onto Hitler. While, really, it was a silent citizenry that bore as much culpability in the end.
Hopefully this series will at least arose some citizens in our modern world to awaken to the same question as similar stupidity, to our submission to partisan rhetoric, arises inside nations that claim to be cognizant of the importance of the lessons to 1945.
Hmmm... Goodale is part of the Liberal Party of Canada who ordered my arrest in February 2004. Why? Because 'Independent' I had dared to challenge that elected lawyers had entered what Canada's Criminal Code forbade because of events that happened to 1945. For two long years, as an 'independent citizen', I had warned Canadian 'legal professionals' to get the partisans out of Canada's courts where I was complaining about the conduct of partisans.
"As tragic events in our world since 1945"? Really? Where have 6 million citizens, including dissenting citizens, not just 'those Jews', disappeared into a deliberate system created to remove the right to life of any person, in violation of international law? Oh, there have been mass murders of tragic proportion that continue around this world. But the bigger question is what creates the background to these situations that should never recur, if 1945 were really treated as a credible lesson to what our personal responsibilities are?
So, yes, I sat down to watch Last Days of the Nazis, a History Channel production. As a summary description, apparently written by a person who identifies him or herself as a 'showrunner', apparently from the History Channel, says at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=215174 , the series "... is a story that's rarely been broadcast on television before. This is a dark and compelling history of Nazism from a different perspective – that of the Nazis themselves. In 1945, the Allies rounded up and interrogated thousands of ex-Nazis. The interrogations became a fascinating, but largely forgotten, part of the historical record. The Last Days of the Nazis uses these interrogations to dramatically bring to life accounts by Nazi death camp commandants, Nazi doctors, generals, architects, and members of the Hitler Youth. It is an inside look at the minds and motivations of the most evil regime in history. This is what the enemy told us. ...".
I agreed with some comments then made about the series at that web page. It is frustrating to watch actors appear to mouth the English translations of interrogations of various Nazis from that era. As one commentator suggested, voice overs with less repetition from these historic characters, would have worked better, especially on a DVD version.
Nevertheless, the DVD would be something that I would buy, 'just for the record', and then seek out the books that tell the whole story behind these interrogations and the subsequent documentary footage. The program is worth a watch because, in the end, it leads to an interview with a lady who was a leader in the Hitler Youth. Initially, she admits in the interrogation, she was offended when the Allies, who incarcerated her and her Nazi Youth friends inside 'rehabilitation camps' for nearly three years, posted posters even in the mess tents where these young adults ate. Said Melita Meschmann, initially she was offended. The posters included pictures of what had been discovered at Buchenwald.
Initially, she insisted that they were "faked photos", created by the new camps of Allied concentrated indoctrination. Like Hitler Youth enthusiast, Armin Lehmann (who was the son of a SS Officer of high rank in the German army),many Hitler Youth carried doubts, thinking the American film was Allied propaganda.
Apparently the interrogation records for young Lehmann reveal that he attended a film that documented what Americans did not see until the movie Judgement at Nuremberg used real footage to discuss this era in American movie theatres in the early 1960's. Lehmann recounts an aging German war vet leaning over during the the American Army's film session he attended. "Hollywood!", Lehmann says the old man whispered fiercely.
But, both Lehmann and Meschmann eventually admit that they came to the realization that these things had really, tragically happened. Why? Because both said that they knew that the mountains of bodies and opaque skin could not have been staged.
The good thing about this documentary? It ends up presenting the posters that poised to the citizens of Germany, below these horrific records and images, the question: "Who is responsible?" And uses these interrogations to incriminate those who tried to put the blame for all of this blood and mayhem onto Hitler. While, really, it was a silent citizenry that bore as much culpability in the end.
Hopefully this series will at least arose some citizens in our modern world to awaken to the same question as similar stupidity, to our submission to partisan rhetoric, arises inside nations that claim to be cognizant of the importance of the lessons to 1945.
China Cry: A True Story
(1990)
If You are Not a Fanatical Christian, Don't Waste Your Time
31 August 2015
Sorry. I was raised in 'the Christian genre'. I suppose that I should have more sympathy for this movie, therefore. It may, in the end, be a compelling story about Communists suppressing another poor Christian, despite 'the communist constitution' (and, yes, even dissident Andrei Sakharov, a non-Christian, told the world, again and again, that the constitutions of many communist nations, like Canada's and the USA's, 'guarantees freedom of religion').
Oh, I became suspicious that this was one more 'Christian' production for the sake of boosting the low morales, and morals, of weakling 'christians'. After all, one must portray a 'true story' by, as the film's precursory text admits, 'compressing' the primary character's life down into short, intense dramas. I could not get beyond watching the pregnant heroine being kicked by a communist interrogator in her pregnant gut.
It may have been a true event but the contrived scene caused me to turn the DVD off.
Why? It is not just that the 1990 film is so jerky in its subtitles and its filming is so bad. The honesty behind what is the worth of telling the story is so forced in its presentation that it leaves me wondering how much of the story is 'compressed' for the sake of bad drama and good propaganda.
The problem becomes that shoddy art, and, worse, questions of whether the truth is being sacrificed for 'the sake of religion', does not justify suffering any 'true story' made into a film.
I am also sick of the repetitive productions, by 'Christian production companies' like this, that hide their banners "Produced by a Christian CORPORATION!" while they accuse 'commies', muslims and others of forcing their own friends into hiding. Good god, I sat in an Anglican church in Nipigon, Ontario as late as 2010 and listened to a Christian Gideon Bible thumper tell the tiny men in that tiny back room church room that a certain tribe of Abraham should have been exterminated millennia ago as the Jewish god apparently ordered in that 'old testament'. Instead those 'damned muslims' became so great in number, to leave 'us christians!' with the onerous task, by 2010, of exterminating masses of 'those Islamic rats'. Those sects, apparently descended from the same loins of the ancient man (Abraham) who supposedly spawned the fathers of the Jews and the Muslims and those christians and how many other murderous sects now claiming that the new sect of 'anti-religion', those damned commies, have no right to live, either.
So, when does TBN Films, the supposed production company behind this 'China Cry' start to make the films that vilify the antics of 'christians'? That is relevant because at least in the open world of independent films, there are films produced that criticize both commies and religious nut bars. Produced by the same production companies.
I have YET to see such navel gazing from these 'Christian production companies'.
So, when they do not navel gaze in self criticism, what makes the 'Christian film genre' any more credible than the nonsense coming out of commie North Korea, where navel gazing is not allowed? Is there a gun to the heads of the 'Christian nutbars' who create this stuff? If there were, then I might start to watch 'the Christian version of a story' to try to find the hidden agenda in their 'bad productions'.
I sicken of this propaganda from religious sects of all kinds. BUT, I am OFFENDED by the fact that these religious sects try to suck the rest of us into watching really BAD productions by refusing to post their big Jesus Christ crosses of idolatry at the front of their productions.
Oh, watch it if you must but I tossed it because we will never really know if this lady's professing that she 'encountered miracles!' is because there was 'a god of modern idolatry' involved. OR, if those people who were involved in the stomach kicking of pregnant women actually dared to turn to their superior commanding officers and ask "What does our constitution really say?" Something that American and Canadian 'christians' of too many sects are seemingly more and more reluctant to do inside our own nations.... when it comes to anyone who does not 'profess your Christianity!'
And what does all of this mean when it comes down to the 'Christian' icon's supposedly professed advice: that being honest to the truth removes any question as to what your motives really are?: To drag money out of the down and oppressed so that big cathedrals and monuments can be built to the benefit of what and who?
In other words, in a world where the 'Christian' enters the game of dishonesty in the first bars of who is making the presentation, the role of credibility in the purpose of the film, and hence the objectivity in the film itself, is lost.
This film was a waste of my time for 20 minutes AND, YES, I resent that. IF you are making a film with religious recruitment as your intent, GET HONEST! Post your christian cross or Islamic sword or... communist hammer and sickle at the start so that I know the purposeful twisting of the stories so that I can pull it out of the DVD within a minute instead of suffering so long that, instead of recruitment, you achieve resentment.
Why a 3 instead of a big fat ZERO? Wherever the production was made, it had some nice representative Asian architecture. And the male and female 'stars' were 'good eye candy' for awhile. Otherwise, phoooeeeeyyy! Don MacAlpine, Wolseley, Saskatchewan, Canada
Oh, I became suspicious that this was one more 'Christian' production for the sake of boosting the low morales, and morals, of weakling 'christians'. After all, one must portray a 'true story' by, as the film's precursory text admits, 'compressing' the primary character's life down into short, intense dramas. I could not get beyond watching the pregnant heroine being kicked by a communist interrogator in her pregnant gut.
It may have been a true event but the contrived scene caused me to turn the DVD off.
Why? It is not just that the 1990 film is so jerky in its subtitles and its filming is so bad. The honesty behind what is the worth of telling the story is so forced in its presentation that it leaves me wondering how much of the story is 'compressed' for the sake of bad drama and good propaganda.
The problem becomes that shoddy art, and, worse, questions of whether the truth is being sacrificed for 'the sake of religion', does not justify suffering any 'true story' made into a film.
I am also sick of the repetitive productions, by 'Christian production companies' like this, that hide their banners "Produced by a Christian CORPORATION!" while they accuse 'commies', muslims and others of forcing their own friends into hiding. Good god, I sat in an Anglican church in Nipigon, Ontario as late as 2010 and listened to a Christian Gideon Bible thumper tell the tiny men in that tiny back room church room that a certain tribe of Abraham should have been exterminated millennia ago as the Jewish god apparently ordered in that 'old testament'. Instead those 'damned muslims' became so great in number, to leave 'us christians!' with the onerous task, by 2010, of exterminating masses of 'those Islamic rats'. Those sects, apparently descended from the same loins of the ancient man (Abraham) who supposedly spawned the fathers of the Jews and the Muslims and those christians and how many other murderous sects now claiming that the new sect of 'anti-religion', those damned commies, have no right to live, either.
So, when does TBN Films, the supposed production company behind this 'China Cry' start to make the films that vilify the antics of 'christians'? That is relevant because at least in the open world of independent films, there are films produced that criticize both commies and religious nut bars. Produced by the same production companies.
I have YET to see such navel gazing from these 'Christian production companies'.
So, when they do not navel gaze in self criticism, what makes the 'Christian film genre' any more credible than the nonsense coming out of commie North Korea, where navel gazing is not allowed? Is there a gun to the heads of the 'Christian nutbars' who create this stuff? If there were, then I might start to watch 'the Christian version of a story' to try to find the hidden agenda in their 'bad productions'.
I sicken of this propaganda from religious sects of all kinds. BUT, I am OFFENDED by the fact that these religious sects try to suck the rest of us into watching really BAD productions by refusing to post their big Jesus Christ crosses of idolatry at the front of their productions.
Oh, watch it if you must but I tossed it because we will never really know if this lady's professing that she 'encountered miracles!' is because there was 'a god of modern idolatry' involved. OR, if those people who were involved in the stomach kicking of pregnant women actually dared to turn to their superior commanding officers and ask "What does our constitution really say?" Something that American and Canadian 'christians' of too many sects are seemingly more and more reluctant to do inside our own nations.... when it comes to anyone who does not 'profess your Christianity!'
And what does all of this mean when it comes down to the 'Christian' icon's supposedly professed advice: that being honest to the truth removes any question as to what your motives really are?: To drag money out of the down and oppressed so that big cathedrals and monuments can be built to the benefit of what and who?
In other words, in a world where the 'Christian' enters the game of dishonesty in the first bars of who is making the presentation, the role of credibility in the purpose of the film, and hence the objectivity in the film itself, is lost.
This film was a waste of my time for 20 minutes AND, YES, I resent that. IF you are making a film with religious recruitment as your intent, GET HONEST! Post your christian cross or Islamic sword or... communist hammer and sickle at the start so that I know the purposeful twisting of the stories so that I can pull it out of the DVD within a minute instead of suffering so long that, instead of recruitment, you achieve resentment.
Why a 3 instead of a big fat ZERO? Wherever the production was made, it had some nice representative Asian architecture. And the male and female 'stars' were 'good eye candy' for awhile. Otherwise, phoooeeeeyyy! Don MacAlpine, Wolseley, Saskatchewan, Canada
A Coffee in Berlin
(2012)
Black Comedy in Black and White
31 August 2015
Would I have preferred this movie in colour? I pondered that question because I have never been to Berlin. It might have been interesting to see the locale in colour. But I think that it would have detracted, distracted me from the powerful message behind the movie.
It is more than about finding a 'good cheap cuppa coffee' in Berlin. It becomes, in the end, a midair suspension of the question: if Berlin should ever get over its stigma for falling into the violence that was forcibly ended in 1945. And what all of this means to the rest of the world when, in reality, a boy in Berlin is no different than a boy in Toronto, Canada or New York, New York.
Art is the ability to challenge the viewer as to the meaning behind the film. Good art leads to various interpretations by various people. I ended up feeling momentarily empty and puzzled about this movie. The main character leads us through an array of the moral questions that can happen in the span of one day, questions which lead us to... no clear answers.
And that fact makes this film good art... another borrowed Library DVD that I hope to buy in years to come, to add to the 'arty' collection of compelling movies.
It is more than about finding a 'good cheap cuppa coffee' in Berlin. It becomes, in the end, a midair suspension of the question: if Berlin should ever get over its stigma for falling into the violence that was forcibly ended in 1945. And what all of this means to the rest of the world when, in reality, a boy in Berlin is no different than a boy in Toronto, Canada or New York, New York.
Art is the ability to challenge the viewer as to the meaning behind the film. Good art leads to various interpretations by various people. I ended up feeling momentarily empty and puzzled about this movie. The main character leads us through an array of the moral questions that can happen in the span of one day, questions which lead us to... no clear answers.
And that fact makes this film good art... another borrowed Library DVD that I hope to buy in years to come, to add to the 'arty' collection of compelling movies.
The Last Sentence
(2012)
Mixed opinions
30 August 2015
Borrowed from a library, this movie was first watched by a friend. Because I had picked the movie because of its theme, I was, hence, tentative. The friend found the movie long and made too complicated with its English subtitles and 'ghosts'. However, this is a friend who cannot sit and watch a movie... has to get up and 'do other things' in 'the boring sections'. Does not work with subtitles.
So, I began to watch it with some apprehension. Which swiftly disappeared. Perhaps because I am an activist/dissident in Canada (and I use such movies to ask myself and others, what makes us so naive about our failed democracies when we have stories like this in our history?), it was the subtitles of the dialogue that struck so true. And, being male, (my friend is female) I could relate with the man's inner turmoil. Making the ghosts of three important women in the main character's life becomes an effective tool for exposing this man's conscience. It is also good to follow up the movie with the extras provided with the DVD.
This is a movie I would buy for my collection of 'movies for reflection' on human behaviour that becomes sad ignorance of situations like this... where governments push down the truth. Sweden might use the excuse that they had to do what they had to do to suppress this man and his defence of freedom of speech. This movie simply emphasizes that we have no excuse.
So, I began to watch it with some apprehension. Which swiftly disappeared. Perhaps because I am an activist/dissident in Canada (and I use such movies to ask myself and others, what makes us so naive about our failed democracies when we have stories like this in our history?), it was the subtitles of the dialogue that struck so true. And, being male, (my friend is female) I could relate with the man's inner turmoil. Making the ghosts of three important women in the main character's life becomes an effective tool for exposing this man's conscience. It is also good to follow up the movie with the extras provided with the DVD.
This is a movie I would buy for my collection of 'movies for reflection' on human behaviour that becomes sad ignorance of situations like this... where governments push down the truth. Sweden might use the excuse that they had to do what they had to do to suppress this man and his defence of freedom of speech. This movie simply emphasizes that we have no excuse.
Tell Your Friends