fx_gent

History is replete with countless stories of exceptional individuals. Unfortunately, when people discuss famous women, African Americans, Hispanics, ,etc. they tend to lean towards those individuals who are better known. Every so often there is the exception, the telling of those not remembered or forgotten, this documentary being one of them. Going into the theater I carried with me only the knowledge of who Getrude Berg was. I came out with a deep appreciation of what she accomplished in her life as a writer of 12,000 scripts; first lady of television, etc. and her overall impact. I was impressed especially at her work on behalf of her costar Phillip Loeb during the Communist witchhunts of the 1950s. This is an exceptional documentary and worth taking the time to see.

By itself, Public Enemies is a fairly decent movie that recreates the atmosphere of the time, the so called golden era of bank robberies through the escapades of John Dillenger. I especially give high marks to the recreation of some of the bank heists and shootings that took place. However, the major failure of this film is its deviation from the facts. Most of us generally understand that movies rooted in true stories will at times stray from the facts to make the story more profitable. What deeply disappointed me was how wide a deviation was taken in a number areas, especially the Little Bohemia shootout. If they had stuck to the facts, they still would have had a good film. Sadly, they decided not to. Would I recommend the film, yes. But do not consider it true fact and take the time to actually read up on what really happened.

I generally like the movies that Sandra Bullock has been making over the years, however there have been a few bombs. This is not one of them. In many ways, this is a slightly different version of past scripts of other romantic comedies. What makes it work is Bullock and Betty White. Bullock has once again shown she can play comedy very well and she especially does so with her body language and facial expressions. However, what added to this movie's charm was Betty White, who stole the show at times. Even though she was not always on screen, when she appeared, you noticed her. I may be judged wrong by others, but I hope the Academy seriously considers her for a best supporting nomination for her role come the next Oscars. I have seen other actresses do far less and win, so heads up Academy come January 2010. Two weeks ago I went to see the Hangover and as much as I liked it, this was a far funnier film. Everybody in the audience seemed to be laughing as much as me. Good movie, worth seeing.

I first saw this film on television and fell in love with it. Although the movie varies from the book, which is worth reading, it is still a pleasure with the suspense and action. Taking the talents of Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, and Martin Balsam, all good actors, and throwing them into the mix adds to a nail biting script. I especially felt the music definitely helped add to the movie's atmosphere. Having seen the movie many times over the years, it still ranks among my top favorite films. Although a TV remake was made and it was okay, nothing stands up to the original. Now that they are releasing an updated version this summer, I have to be honest and say I have misgivings considering the trailers. However, I will keep an open mind. None the less, this is still a taught thriller.

As someone who grew up in the 1970s, I found the concept of Swingtown to be interesting. That said, I found the show to be extremely enjoyable and if someone, most likely not CBS, chooses to bring this back for another season, I would watch it. Once I got past the first episode or two, watching the development of the characters was fascinating and how they reflected the changing norms of the time, especially about sex and women's rights. I did catch a couple of errors in watching the series, as a few people have noted on here and I agree one hundred percent that if the show does come back, someone should get their facts straight. Overall, it was the best new show on television this summer and worth watching.

I had been interested in seeing this film after having viewed the trailer, and jumped at the chance to see it at a local arts theater. Sadly, although it is not without charm, I found it to be slow and dry more often than not. It seemed as if the film was searching for an identity that it never really found, was it a comedy, drama, gangster picture, or what? I was was never sure. The scenery is interesting and of course plays a role in the film. I did enjoy some of the comic dialogue and moments in the story, but in the end it did not make it a worthwhile trip to the theater. I would have been happier seeing it on cable and not spending $7.00. My suggestion, wait until you can see it on cable and save your money.

I recently had the opportunity to see this film via the TCM Cable Channel and found it enjoyable, but more as a comedy with dramatic overtones rather than a drama mystery. As a product of its time, 1936, I am sure it probably entertained viewers as a mystery, but time has sheered that veneer from it especially in light of these times. I agree with an earlier comment made about the dialogue, which is now somewhat comically outdated. As I listened to Howard Phillips go on as killer Madsen, I could not help but be reminded of current actor Bruce Campbell. I especially enjoyed the performances of Don Barclay as an inebriated passenger and John Kelly as a boxer, which I felt in many ways stole the movie from the leads, such as the lovely Jean Muir. I do give credit though to those who set the scene involving the dust storm segment and found it to be well done. With a little more work this movie had the potential to be a good thriller and I feel would be an excellent candidate to be redone today.

A reasonably decent motion picture for its time, the one attribute that makes this film stand out from its standard storyline, is its footage and scenes regarding dirigibles. When this film was released in 1931, it was the golden age of zeppelin travel, and the crash of the Hindenburg, which doomed this type of transportation, was still five years in the future. There were numerous scenes shot at Lakehurst Naval Air station, where ironically the Hindenburg crashed, that was the center of dirigible activity at the time for the U.S. Navy. As someone who is interested in this subject, I found this part of the movie fascinating as well as the part of the story that took you behind the scenes of airship travel and how much danger could be involved. The riveting scene dealing with the crash of a dirigible in a violent storm brought to mind the U.S. Navy zeppelin Akron, launched the same year as this film, which was destroyed in a similar storm only two years later. It was also interesting to see actress Fay Wray two years before she would gain fame with her role in King Kong. I had the opportunity to catch this film recently during an airing on the TCM cable channel and would recommend it for anyone with a similar interest.

Intrigued to learn more about the early days of the CIA, I decided to see this film. Was it a bad film? Not really. Although the storyline did hold my interest for most of the film, I found the movie to be a long, dry, and somewhat slow affair. It concentrated more on the life of Edmond Wilson, a CIA agent, rather than on the creation of the CIA, which we only learned about in the context of his life. The movie did do an excellent job portraying a man who sacrifices his personnel life for the sake of his job. The opening sequences involving the Bay of Pigs was also done well. Neverless I went to learn more about the CIA and the movie told me no more than I already knew. Overall, I was disappointed and would give it a B- to C+ since it was off target. My suggestion, wait until it is available on cable or for rental.

I was in high school in 1980 when John Lennon was assassinated and all I really knew about him was that he was a musician and a member of the Beatles. I found this documentary fascinating, which gave an excellent insight into Lennon's participation in and effect on the anti-war movement in the US during the Vietnam War. I came away with a greater respect of the man and what he tried to do along with with his wife and the pressures they faced from the US government who wanted to silence them. Although some parts were something of a rehash about the anti-war movement in general, the skillful editing along with use of numerous interviews and recorded material still made it enjoyable and informative. One can not help but draw a comparison between this film and message and the on-going debate over the Iraq war, which I suspect was one of the goals of those who made it. I saw this film at a suburban Washington DC theater this weekend, and when one of the interviewees said "John Lennon represented light, and Mr. Nixon and Mr. Bush represented death" at least half the audience clapped. I guess it made its point to this audience. If you get a chance to see it, I highly recommend it.

As a reader of alternate history literature, I was naturally drawn to the intriguing premise of this film. I congratulate the film's makers on choosing to present their film as a television documentary intercut with commercials, which I thought was clever. Sadly, some parts of the film though came out as poorly done, having seen better on History Channel documentaries. Many parts did make me wince and think of how television would influence such a society, such as the Slave Selling Network and Runaway, and found myself sympathizing with the DVD comments made by the movie makers over how difficult these scenes were to make. In retrospect, I did find the premise a bit implausible as some AH material is, especially the concept of the South overwhelming the North. I would really enjoy seeing someone take the challenge someday of bringing to the screen Harry Turtledove's ongoing AH series dealing with a universe where the USA and CSA are rivals.

I found this movie to be something of a disappointment, especially since the trailer is what attracted me to see it. Having watched a fair number of horror films over the years, I look for those that are outside the norm and are intriguing. Sadly, I found this film to be confusing at times. Although I quickly picked up on the gist of the film, I will give it credit for maintaining certain elements that kept you interested. I will especially congratulate the film makers on their creation of the spooky atmosphere. My main beef though was the confusion, especially over the ending, which left me baffled and unclear as to the conclusion of the storyline. I am glad that I missed this in the theater and ended up seeing it on video recently.

A fascinating and gripping film, I had the pleasure of watching it in 1983 during its premiere on NBC. The concept of showing the film as a series of televised news broadcasts and bulletins was inventive and hearkened back to the days of the War of the Worlds broadcast, giving it something of an edge. Along with the Day After, these two television movies were among the best made in the early 1980s highlighting the dangers of atomic weapons and nuclear war. The comment I hear every so often of this being a bit cheesy is unfair. Given the context of the time, when tensions were still high in the Cold War, it gave perspective of what might happen. The only problem I had, was that the film should have been longer than its originally airing of two hours, spending as much time on what would happen after an atomic explosion as leading up to the event. The best film of this kind since Special Bulletin and Day After, was the recent Dirty War. I can only imagine how this film would be done today, given the expansion of cable news, via 1983 when the networks were the only real source of news.

I had the pleasure of seeing the original Poseidon Adventure in 1973 at the age of nine at my local theater shortly after its release. I fell in love with the film, and it remains my favorite motion picture of all time. I confess to a certain measure of anger that wells up at comments that razz the film, including that it is cheesy. So, when I heard that it had been remade, I was curious to see which route the movie would take. Whether that of the book it was based on, or the first film. This weekend, I finally had the chance to catch the film, and found that is took a route close to the first script. Although I must confess that in the back of my mind I kept trying to compare it to the first film (who doesn't with a remake), I did find the film to be good. Updated special effects have helped to convey a greater sense of the horror that would occur in such a tragedy, something the first one could not really do. The life and death struggle for survival was more intense as well, adding to the drama. My big beef though, is that Andre Braugher, who is a great actor, was wasted in a minor role. Does the movie follow the the standard rules of a disaster film, yes. Does it detract from the film, no. My suggestion, see both films and judge for yourself.

This series, which only just appeared on the AMC cable network in the US this year, is a welcome enjoyment. It is clever, funny, and intriguing, definitely one of the top ten shows of this year and worthy of an Emmy nomination. The cutaways, in which the con team lets the viewer into their schemes, with a knowing wink, nod, and sometime explanation, make you feel if you are being allowed into their inner sanctum. A great cast, including a bravo performance by Adrian Lester, helps to carry the clever scripts. One warning though, if you decide to see this, make sure you set your recorder for 75 minutes. Each episode runs more than an hour and the final fifteen minutes are crucial to understanding the plot. Right now AMC is cycling through reruns of the first episodes, so I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of new ones.

As a student of history, I enjoy seeing motion pictures that bring to life events in history. Sadly, very few are made, mostly for cable, and those that do make it to the big screen tend to be inaccurate. Despite being a dramatization, this film deftly captured the spirit and essence of the Christmas Eve Truce of World War I. I found the film to be poignant, sad, and funny, with many outstanding moments, my favorite being the clashes between the German officer and the Scottish priest with their superiors over their actions. Of all the powerful performances of the film, the one that stood out best to me was that of Gary Lewis as Father Palmer, from when we first see him in his church, crying over the departure of the town's young men to war, to the final scene in the military hospital. The one thing that struck me in watching the movie, was that the truce was most likely as successful as it was because the soldiers, the British, French, and Germans, all had a shared heritage that created a deeper connection that was able to cross over the boundaries of war, just as Union and Confederate troops did during the Civil War. As such, I would not draw upon it as a truly accurate analogy to modern day events, but it does speak volumes on how useless war can more than often be. It showed for one moment how soldiers, albeit for a brief time, could cast off the coat of the warrior, to reveal the human hidden beneath. This is a film that is worth the effort to go and see.

Anyone who saw the trailer for this film, raise their hand if they were not immediately reminded of "Night of the Creeps?" As such, my first thought was whether this was another poor rip-off, err.. retelling, of a classic horror film. I was pleased that it did try to perform on its own, just borrowing elements from other films. None the less, a film that should have done better, given the premise, fell somewhat flat in its performance. The film spends a great deal of time building up to the first appearance of the worms, then quickly sprints to the conclusion. I would have deferred to have seen approximately the same amount of time spent covering each area. It is not to say, that this film did have its certain charms. There were some genuine moments of both creepiness and hilarity throughout. I thought that Gregg Henry definitely stole the show when he appeared as Mayor MacReady, especially his tirade for a soda. Overall, is it a bad film? Not really. It definitely could have been better, judge for yourself.

I generally keep an open mind when I see a movie, but in the case of this film, I was very disappointed. I had seen the trailer and thought it looked to be interesting, but as it seems to be the case in films like this, the front is pretty, but there is no backing. The fight and chase scenes were interesting. What killed the film, was the poor storyline. We are rapidly rushed into the film with little explanation, what there is being poor, concerning this world and how things reached this point. The same can be said concerning the heroine. We learn little of her background and never can truly understand what made her go from a nurse to a cold-blooded warrior for her cause so rapidly. It seemed as if someone stitched together a weak story, in order to connect the intense action sequences. My suggestion, if you want to see it, wait until it comes on cable.

As much as I enjoy a good action movie, I am sad to say, having just seen this film this weekend, that this one was mediocre. Bruce Willis and David Morse were once again cast in roles that must feel like wearing an old glove. Willis, as the weary, baggage-heavy, usually alcohol troubled cop, and David Morse as the villainous cop, a la his role in The Negotiator. I think Willis is a decent actor, but often he is cast in films where he doesn't always shine. To be fair, this movie was mildly enjoyable, but very predictable. This being my first time seeing Mos Def, he was interesting, but his character got to be irritating at times. If you are interested in seeing this, please wait until it is available via rental or cable. Overall, I would have to give it a C, neither bad, nor great.

I decided to see this movie mostly out of curiosity, lured by the reviews. Although I wouldn't call it a bad film, I would not call it a good one either. I was confused for the most part and felt like the script tended to wander all over the place, going in multiple directions. I did find Tomlin and Hoffman hysterical as husband and wife existential detectives and enjoyed the film mostly when they made the scene. When Hoffman made his appearance with the soup-bowl haircut and the chalk dust on his back, I couldn't help but laugh. This is one of those films where you would have to make your own evaluation. As for me, wait till it comes out on rental.

I was drawn to this film, despite my misgivings, only because the same comic minds of South Park were behind it. Having now seen it, I truly believe that I should have followed my intuition and bypassed it.

Although there were some funny moments throughout the movie, they were few and could not save this film. In fact, I am sorry to say, much of the film was lame and stupid, and some scenes were just plain unfunny, such as the vomiting sequence. While leaving the theater I overheard two other people making similar comments, stating that South Park was far better. I totally agree. The South Park film was hysterical, while this belongs in the bargain basement bin. Wait for this movie to come out on cable!

When I first read about this film, it did not sound like anything I wanted to see. But after hearing a number of interesting comments about it, and that it was playing at my local cinema arts theater, I decided to take a chance. I was pleasantly surprised and enjoyed both the humor and the storyline. Many of the people in the audience seemed to enjoy it as well, and I heard a great deal of laughter at many points. I thought one of the funnier jokes, was what would a good, Christian girl be doing in a Planned Parenthood clinic? Either she is planting a pipe bomb or is pregnant. I have heard many negative remarks about this movie being anti-Christian, but I found that to not be the case. The only people who would be offended, are those of whom the humor cuts close to the truth. I found the story to be touching and as a Christian, I was pleased with the message put forth in the film about belief. I would definitely give this film four stars and highly recommend it.

In watching this film, I was unsure if it was suppose to be a comedy, a slasher film, or both. Regardless of what the writers' intentions were, it fails miserably on all accounts. Overall, it was poorly done, with many of the jokes coming across as lame. If you want to see a good spoof, I recommend Scary Movie. At least you will actually have a good time laughing. I will admit though, there were one or two brief moments of amusement. Unfortunately, they were not enough to save this movie. I am thankful, that I caught this movie on video, rather than waste a trip to the theater. Club Dread was just plain dreadful. Even Super Troopers was slightly better, and that is saying allot.

This movie is a wonderful example of what you can achieve when you combine a great script with a fantastic cast. It is one of the great comic ensemble films, ranking up there along with Its a Mad, Mad, Mad World and Clue. I have loved this film since I first saw it back in the 70s and still find it just as funny today. I had hoped for sometime that a special DVD would be released to mark this film and allow us to know more about how it was made and hear comments from the surviving cast. Sadly, the DVD does have a great interview with Neil Simon, but nothing else. I was also disappointed to see absent missing scenes, especially the one showing Sherlock Holmes showing up at the end. Still, it was great to retire my dogeared video tape.

I have been interested in disaster films since seeing the ?Poseidon Adventure? in 1972 (among the better made) and over the years I have seen many, some good, many bad. I rented this film,interested by the box?s description. When I actually started to watch it, I felt like I was experiencing deja vu. In 1979, another film was released called ?City on Fire? with an identical plot involving a city, an industrial complex, and firestorm. Having seen it about three times, I am somewhat familiar with the plot. ?Inferno? is nearly identical, in fact it is if someone took that other script, altered some things and came up with this. The kid trapped in the house, the hospital trapped in the firestorm, the scaffolding falling on people running from the hospital, the guy running into the burning building to retrieve a file, and the gauntlet of fire people must run to escape the hospital are a number of examples. Another person stated that some scenes looked like stock footage from the 70s, the reason for this is that many of those scenes appeared to have been lifted from ?City on Fire.? This film was an embarrassment to those performing in it and the writer should be ashamed of themselves. I am surprised the original scriptwriter did not try and sue for copyright infringement. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in this case it is not.