AlanTES

This was one of the films I was most looking forward to at the last Tribeca Film Festival and was sorely disappointed. Jamie Johnson's first film, "Born Rich" was an excellent documentary. That film dealt with the issue of children born into mass amounts of wealth and how they deal with it. HBO picked it up and I highly recommend it.

This film apparently attempts to deal with the disparity of wealth between the poor and the richest 1% of America and the ramifications it has on society. Johnson has a tough task, and he clearly misses the mark. To his credit, Johnson gets a great deal of access and interviews the likes of Milton Friedman, Robert Reich, Steve Forbes and Ralph Nader. Although, the star of the film is a random taxi driver from Louisiana.

Johnson certainly has a definite viewpoint on economics that lies somewhere between Nader and Marx. Now, I have no problem if he wants to make a film extolling the views of socialism (which he calls progressiveness), but his style of editing was dreadfully unfair, especially in the case of Milton Friedman. Watching Johnson argue with a Nobel Prize winner like Friedman was just awkward. Johnson comes off looking like some arrogant snot-nosed kid who just took a college course in economics and is "educating" Milton Friedman as to the reasons why trickle-down economics is wrong. Eventually, Friedman gets up and ends the interview out of exasperation. Even if you don't agree with him, Friedman deserve a level of respect.

As for other flaws, he clearly needs an editor who knows how to make a cohesive film. While, he is very good at capturing footage revealing extreme wealth and extreme poverty, the viewer is left without figuring out what his point is. It appears one of his positions is to oppose efforts to repeal the inheritance (i.e. death) tax. He also argues for campaign finance reform and higher taxes on dividend income. Again, these are all legitimate positions to have, but the film is all over the place and he comes across that he's just personally guilty to receive all this wealth by way of inheritance.

As a filmmaker, Johnson's best skill appears to be making his interview subjects (always the rich people) look inarticulate, foolish and crass: even his own father. Considering how badly the father looked in "Born Rich", I'm surprised he agreed to be filmed in the second movie. Here's a warning to his family: If he is filming anywhere near you, do NOT sign the release.)

I truly hope this film is merely a sophomore slump and his future films are better.

I just saw this film's world premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival.

The movie starts off with Mini, played by Nikki Reed as a spoiled and manipulating child of a wealthy actress (Carrie Anne Moss). (ala Heathers). Anyway, Mini decides to work as a call girl for the heck of it, and one of her first clients is her step-father (Alec Baldwin). They begin a torrid love affair and devise a plan to drive Moss crazy so that they can be together (ala Gaslight). Predictably, the plan turns to murder. And "then" the movie gets really dark.

The first half of the film was really good as the various scenarios devised to make Moss go crazy are inspired and original. However, in the second half of the movie, the plot begins to fall apart and things just get too creepy. Also, the "twist" at the end is somewhat obvious throughout the film.

Finally, I still cant figure out why Jeff Goldblum is in this movie. He's a really good actor, but his character was superfluous and pointless. It seems the only reason he's even in this movie was to add some improv scenes and have him make strange faces for pointless comedy. Has Jeff Goldblum turned into the comedic version of Christopher Walken?

I just saw this film at the Tribeca Film Festival and was moved by how compelling it was.

Director Deborah Scranton had an opportunity to become an embedded journalist with a National Guard Unit from New Hampshire deployed to Iraq. She turned down the opportunity, but instead gave cameras to several soldiers who agreed to film their experiences while serving their tour of duty. The images are striking and disturbing. The words of the soldiers are as real and raw as anything I've ever seen. These are men who are facing a deadly enemy every day yet still do their job proudly and professionally. The soldiers do not hold back their views on the war; and those views do differ wildly. Nonetheless, they all believe firmly that no matter the reason why we are there, we must finish the job right. It was also a special treat to watch the audience give them a several minute standing ovation during the Q & A. These are all intelligent and heroic men who sacrifice a great deal. Even more amazing, they reveal their flaws for the camera, and their humanity is even more compelling.

Had the filmmakers merely shown footage of the soldiers, that would have been enough. However, they also took footage of the families during the year these husbands, fathers and sons were gone. The wives, girlfriends and mothers show the viewer that not only are the soldiers sacrificing a great deal, but so are the families. The footage of one mother who escaped a war-torn Lebanon only to see her son go off to war as a volunteer was absolutely heart wrenching. I would challenge anyone not to cry at that scene, and many others. Most movies invoke emotion by a good story or good acting. This story is real and the people are real, and that is what makes it so overwhelmingly powerful.

Honestly, I had expected this film to be an anti-war or Bush-bashing screed but the film is both political and non-political. No matter how one feels about the war, this film will make their views even stronger.

This film deserves critical acclaim. More importantly, this film deserves to be watched by as many people as possible.

This film won the audience choice award at the Tribeca Film Festival, and it certainly deserved it. Amazingly enough, this is Marshall Curry's first film. I truly hope to see more films from him.

While the subject of national and international politics has been the subject of many critically acclaimed documentaries, Street Fight concentrates on the 2002 Mayoral election in one urban city, Newark, N.J., which is wracked by homelessness, drug addiction and poverty. The movie is perhaps one of the most compelling and interesting documentaries I have ever seen. The film's title is quite appropriate because Television ads are meaningless, but rather these hard-fought battles are won on the street.

The film's director tried to follow the campaigns of both the incumbent Mayor, Sharpe James, who has been Mayor for 16 years and the campaign of the upstart 1st term Councilman, Cory Booker. While the Booker campaign welcomes the filmmaker, Mayor James is less welcoming and outwardly hostile. The film quickly evolves into a compelling David vs. Goliath epic.

You'll watch as Mayor James instructs the Newark police officers act like Storm Troopers intimidating and assaulting campaign workers blatantly violating state and federal law. You'll be outraged as you watch those same police officers attack the film's director in broad daylight on the sidewalks in an attempt to shut down the documentary. Mayor James paints himself as a political villain more despicable than Senator Joseph Paine from "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". The scary part is that the film is not fictional. Had it not been recorded on film, you would not believe it. It's not often that a film angers me. This one did.

Booker tries to campaign on the issues, but we see how effective James' tactics are. Both candidates are Black, but Mayor James constantly refers to Booker as light-skinned and "white" because Booker was educated at Stanford, Yale Law School and was a Rhodes Scholar. Looking at the numerous dirty tricks employed in the campaign, it is no wonder that Sharpe James has never lost an election. Although Booker loses the election, he wins the moral battle and the audience by running an ethical and admirable campaign. The closing scene is Booker's unveiling of his 2006 campaign, which received an ovation from the Tribeca audience.

I saw this movie at the Tribeca Film Festival. The premise seems interesting. A male Republican delegate in NYC for the 2004 RNC Convention runs into an old female friend from college who is preparing for the protests against President Bush outside the Convention hall. He's married and she's engaged, and they wonder why they never became a couple. You can figure out what happens next. Over the next few days, they discover each other and explore their passions and their differences. The film does not have a standard Hollywood ending and it may offend some viewers. But I'm glad the film took a risk.

As for a criticism, many of the scenes between the two lead actors seemed forced and unnatural. Frankly, I didn't buy into their attraction to each other and the dialogue was choppy as was the editing. Nonetheless, the footage of the protests was fascinating. They filmed many of the scenes right there in the middle of the parades with thousands upon thousands of people surrounding them. In fact, the Director revealed that she along with several other crew members were arrested during one of the NYPD's "sweeps" of the protesters. All charges were dropped and the filmmakers are apparently seeking civil damages for false arrest.

The footage of the protests alone make the film worth seeing.

I looked forward to this movie at the Tribeca Film Festival based on the controversy over its depiction of sexuality. Apparently, it's the first film in British history to be released in the mainstream cinema with explicit sex. It would be nice to see the U.S. motion picture industry treat sex in a mature manner and encourage filmmakers to explore the topic in a mature and artistic manner. But that topic is for another day.

Despite the controversy, this film was simply horrible. While the move had a lot of explicit sex, it had no story, plot or point. The entire film was about a man and a woman who have sex and go to 9 different rock concerts... THAT'S IT!!! No context whatsoever. Frankly, the concert footage of British bands like Franz Ferdinand and the Von Bondies was the only worthwhile and redeeming qualities of the film.

Caveh, the director and lead actor of the film has a rather interesting problem; he is addicted to sex with prostitutes. The film is comprised of narrations re-telling the stories of his failed attempts to stop his addiction and the relationships that are destroyed as a result. Mixed in the narration is interview footage of Caveh just before his wedding (his third), where he narrates his struggle. He eventually finds recovery in a 12-step program, and finds a level of happiness.

At the U.S. premiere at the Tribeca Film festival, he revealed that the vast majority of these very personal and embarrassing stories were true. Also, his wife was in the audience and he reports that after 7 years his relationship is strong.

As for the film, it's actually very funny, as Caveh is able to present dysfunctional scenarios in a self-defacing and humorous light. It's a shame that a movie like this will probably never get distributed world-wide, but if you see it at a film festival, go see it. Highly recommended.

Edward and Vincent are both practicing Catholics and want to get married, to each other. Even though the legal battles for the acceptance of Gay Marriage is in the news everyday, this documentary does not focus on that. Rather, the focus of the film is on how these men want their marriage to be in accordance with the sacrament of the Catholic church.

Not only do they fight to find a priest willing to perform the ceremony, but also fight to be the first Catholic Homosexual wedding listed in the New York Times' Style Section. It's a real piece showing how real people are dealing with a very real struggle for tolerance and acceptance.

No matter what your position on the subject is, this film does show how this religious struggle affects people.

This short-film answers the age-old question, "What happens when a lesbian woman asks her gay male friend to impregnate her, the "old-fashioned way". The answer is a raucous and humorous experience which brings quite a few laughs. Also, the movie is actually heart-warming as well. Be forewarned, it's for adult audiences, although it is not gratuitous or explicit.

Director Mouncey Fergunson has made an enjoyable film which is making the rounds in different film festivals, and the crowd at the Rehoboth Beach Film Festival certainly enjoyed this one. I hope to see more works from this director soon.

Frankie is a drugged out stripper with a drugged out boyfriend. One evening she and a male patron at her strip club collapse and she wakes up the next morning thinking she's a man with amnesia. She/he then tries to find this other mystery man to find out what has happened. It had the potential to be an adult themed, "Freaky Friday".

However, the movie quickly devolves into numerous sordid scenes of gratuitous acts of sadism as Frankie begins to mutilate her boyfriend for no reason in particular, and the movie completely abandons the whole gender switch story.

The director at a Q&A session at the Rehoboth Beach Film Festival said he was true to the book, to his credit. That has convinced me never to read the book.

At first blush, this documentary will be seen purely as a hatchet-job on Walmart and its practice of opening stores in suburban communities thus drying up the local mom & pop shops of the community who cannot compete with the prices of Walmart. Once the local stores shut down, the community collapses, and then cant even support the Walmart, which eventually closes as well. "60 Minutes" did an expose on this practice some years ago, and coined the phrase "Walmart-ization".

Whether or not you are anti-Walmart or pro-Walmart, this documentary also tells a story which I dont believe was intended by the filmmaker. it tells a story of democracy within a small community. When it is apparent that the majority of the town council is going to vote in favor of allowing a Walmart to open up in their town, many activists launch a democratic campaign to vote them out of office and replace with with an anti-Walmart slate of candidates.

spoiler ahead.

Lo and behold, the anti-Walmart people win. However, there's one more meeting of the lame-duck city council, where they will vote to decide on the Walmart zoning permit. I found this portion of the documentary to be excellent viewing. One member of the pro-Walmart council that got voted out took the stance, that he would not vote in favor of something the community was against. Even though he was in favor of Walmart, he would not use his vote to go against the wishes of the people, (i.e. the people who voted him out). However, the rest of the council voted in favor of the permit, to the dismay of the citizens in attendance.

As a Walmart hatchet-documentary, it's pretty good... As a documentary on how local small-town politics operates, it's excellent.

I saw this movie at the TriBeCa Film Festival in New York City. The film is shot in the Big Apple and portrays a wealthy couple, Rick & Joyce, in their mid-40's who are going through what might seem to be obligatory marriage difficulties.

However, there is one wrinkle. They are both certifiably insane. Rick is shown as someone who in the backstory has undergone mental health treatment and even institutionalization, and Joyce seems to thrive on nurturing his dysfunction.

The opening scene in the movie is that the couple is hosting a party at their lavish apartment. (Anyone who lives in that kind of apartment in NYC, is filthy rich). Anyway, the party is supposed to be Rick's "comeback" event, as his co-workers and boss are there wishing him a speedy recovery and telling him to take all the time he needs. However, it is clear that Rick is still extremely disturbed and has gone off his meds as he goes into a violent rant about the tie that Joyce bought, and begins to ramble about re-proposing to his wife in front of his guests. The scene of the party guests looking incredibly uncomfortable as Rick makes a jackass of himself, and wishing they were someplace else, before bolting the party, is absolutely precious. I felt just as uncomfortable as the party guests, secure in my theater seat.

Anyway, Rick then bolts the house and goes on a psychotic binge all night, accosting his girlfriend, his shrink, and a complete stranger named Moses, who was the only compelling character. On another completely unrealistic scene, Rick barges into his psychiatrists home at 1:00 a.m. yelling at him that he is a bad shrink. Considering how violent and drunk he was, the fact that the shrink did not call the authorities and have him taken into custody for his own safety give ample evidence that he is a bad shrink. Meanwhile, Joyce also goes off on a psychotic binge in the streets of New York, which also made me equally uncomfortable.

If the movie was about two crazy people in the streets of New York, then I would buy into it. However, the director was present at the film and engaged in question and answers with the audience. He claimed that the movie was supposed to be about how this couple work out their marriage difficulties, and not about their mental diseases. That's not the movie he made.

It's too bad, because had the filmaker made the characters a little less insane, and still go through the same experiences, then the movie would have been quite compelling. Unfortunately, the characters were so unbelievably crazy, that it just devolved into a freakshow. By the end of the film, I simply didn't care about the characters.

On a technical note, the movie was shot on digital video and presented on Windows Media Player, by a computer. The effect was that the movie was too out of focus. They need to work on that technology.

I saw this movie at its New York premier at the TriBeCa FIlm Festival, and I have inserted the description of the movie from the festival's website:

"Insecure technical writer Kenneth (Desmond Harrington) learns so much about women from his silicone sex doll Nikki, whom he ordered over the Internet, that he gets noticed by flesh-and-blood co-worker Lisa (Melissa Sagemiller). It seems like the start of a beautiful thing, but first he must throw off the guilt with which Nikki is invading his subconscious. Parigi's bizarre love triangle examines the horrors of relationships and the changing nature of love in modern times with inspired creepiness."

Based on this description, I eagerly expected to see an intelligent and mature story about a man's journey into alternative sexual identities and how he adapts to them. And for the first 2/3 of this movie we see excellent acting by Harrington and Sagemiller, and some fine cameos by Rip Torn. This portion of the movie is a quirky black comedy about budding romance. The portrayal of the "RealDoll" which has been shown on HBO's Real Sex and The Howard Stern Show was both surreal and delightfully bizarre.

Then comes the last 1/3 of the movie, which inexplicably turns into a murderous gore-fest which inspired much of the audience to exit the theater. I should have joined them. Perhaps the film festival organizers dropped the ball in how they advertised this movie, but the filmakers dropped the ball by turning what was an intelligent dark romantic comedy into a cheap idiotic slasher flick.

One other thing, I'm sick and tired of movies that portray anyone who engages in consensual alternative sex as either a serial killer or a victim of a serial killer.

Despite the disappointing final act, I must say that both Harrington and Sagemiller should become superstars, and truly dominated the screen. Hopefully, they will be shown in roles which truly merit their talent.

I saw this movie at the Tribeca Film Festival, and it upsets me when good movies are not distributed in wide release.

This movie is a fun and exciting experience with some outstanding performances by Bill Murray and Catherine O'Hara. While it might seem like a standard childish sex comedy, the writing and acting are much more intelligent and is sex-positive and witty at the same time.

If you see this playing and want a fun time, go see it.

Ok...

James Gandolfini can now list himself among such great actors

as Eddie Albert, Donald Sutherland, Bob Gunton, Patrick

McGoohan and Gary Oldman. They have all played one-dimensional mentally unstable, "evil" prison wardens.

If one were to judge the character of prison Wardens by Hollywood

movies alone, they would think that they are all feeble-minded

sadistic control freaks, who unfairly always abuse their power

against wrongfully victimized inmates.

As far as this movie goes, the plot actually very closely follows the

plot of the Burt Reynolds classic, as both lead characters are

famous prisoners who both just want to do their time, find

themselves unfortunately (and through no fault of their own) as the

targets of the Warden. For whatever reason, the Warden is more

interested in seeing different factions of the prison population all

fight each other, and wants to crush any attempt at the prisoners

trying to obtain some level of cooperation and self-respect.

Hence, our "hero", Robert Redford, is forced to play in a football

game against the Guards, so he can help the prisoners get their

self-respect.... ooopps... Wrong Movie... *ahem*.

I meant to say, our hero, Robert Redford is forced to take over the

prison... so he can help the prisoners get their self respect.

Don't get me wrong... the movie is well-made, and the actors do a

good job, but this story has been done so many times, and is so

ridiculous, I had to wonder why it was even made.

I dont want to ruin the movie, but I offer a challenge to anyone who

has seen both "The Last Castle" and "The Longest Yard", to

compare the final scenes from both movies, where both Burt

Reynolds and Robert Redford walk away from the Warden, and tell

me if the comparisons are not nearly identical.

I recently saw this film at the Second Annual NY S/M Film Festival.

The movie wrestles such topics as alternative sexuality, AIDS and death. Unfortunately, it wrestles these topics as only the French can do... Pretentious and boring. Even the scene in a French Leather Club just boggled my mind in how unrealistic it was. Everyone in this film seemed to be suffering from some major mental and emotional breakdown, and frankly, it was just a very depressing movie to watch.

Perhaps, I am committing a mortal sin by putting down a "Fellini" movie, but I fail to see what all the commotion is about this film.

I will grant that the images of the film were striking, and the use of colors was rather interesting and experimental, considering that this was Fellini's first color film. (The fact that he was dropping acid while filming, doesn't surprise me in the least).

However, I have never looked at my watch more often than sitting in this film. I found it utterly slow-moving and extremely boring, with the barest tinge of a plot. Perhaps, my tastes don't appreciate the value of people sitting around a brightly colored garden, of a brightly colored house, wearing brightly colored clothing, for 30 minutes while nothing actually happens. If I want to see beautiful images that do absolutely nothing, I'll go to an art museum and look at paintings.

This film advertises itself as a Baseball movie with a Love Story. The film fails at both attempts.

The Love story is boring and pointless as the characters simply go through the cliche'd story of falling in love, and then drifting apart.

But the real disaster here is the failure as a Baseball story. Somehow, we are supposed to believe that Michael O'Keefe is a credible Baseball Slugger? O'Keefe will forever be known as Danny Noonan from Caddychack. Unfortunately, this role did little to take that typecast off of him.

He's less than 200 pounds, with barely any muscle tone on his body, and he supposed to have been inspired by his love for Rebecca De Mornay to hit 62 Home Runs in a Season. The story starts off with the fact that he's a light-weight singles hitter. If you look at the four men in history who have hit over 60 home runs in a season, (Ruth, Maris, McGwire & Sosa) you will see that these men are rather large and muscular. O'keefe is neither.

However, the story gets even more ridiculous as O'Keefe nears the record. On the night before the final game, he is sitting on 61 Home runs, which has tied the record. So, what does he do? He goes out to the local dance club (where he first met De Mornay) with his buddies. On his way to the dance floor, one reporter from Sports Illustrated approaches him and asks him a few questions, than wishes him luck.

ONE REPORTER!?!?! He's on the verge of breaking the single season home run record, and he's out in a disco, and there's only one reporter asking him questions??? Even non-baseball fans can appreciate the amount of media coverage and fan reaction when guys like Maris, McGwire and Sosa neared the 60 mark. Those men were constantly hounded by fans and the media every night.

If you want a decent movie about baseball, that also details the accurate lifestyle of a player about to break the single season, see Billy Crystal's "61*".

This movie was simply a combination of the first 2 episodes of a short-lived TV series called "The Master".

I must admit my bias in this review because I vividly remember this TV show when it first aired in the mid-80's, and, like any other 11 year-old child, I LOVED it. (I think it even came on right after the A-Team, but I could be wrong). Anyway, when I was that age, I had a 6-month long fetish with Ninja movies, or any thing with Sho Kosugi or Michael Dudikoff. To this day, I still enjoy whenever I can catch one of the "Enter the Ninja" or "American Ninja" movies; just because I can look back at what influenced me as a child.

This movie / TV show was a pretty lame attempt at capitalizing on the relative success of those movies. Unless you really enjoy the "Ninja" type movies, you will not enjoy this flick, except to make fun of it. In fact, even Ninja enthusiasts will have to admit this is pretty lame.

However, as a guilty pleasure, this movie does its job. Trust me... you will feel very guilty after watching it.

I had the chance to see this short film at the First Annual NYC S/M Film Festival.

This film presents the inner fantasies of an older black married attendant at a museum, who seems obsessed by images of his homosexual desires. In his fantasies, the paintings on the walls of his museums are transformed into very erotic images of men being bound and whipped.

While the images are very beautiful and presented with artistic grace and precision, there is a serious lack of substance to this short film, and left me with a feeling of that of an incomplete music video.

I had the chance to see this movie at the First Annual NYC S/M Film Festival in October 2000.

The movie depicts a very honest view of his enthusiasm in Consensual Sado-Masochism and other BDSM activities. Not only did Bob Flanagan engage in BDSM as a performance artist, but he also engaged in it as part of his lifestyle. Viewers should be advised, that there are some very extreme presentations of Consensual Sado-Masochism in this film.

Throughout the documentary, we see very revealing interactions between him and his Dominant "Mistress" Rose, and we are shown a very healthy and loving relationship which is centered around a BDSM lifestyle.

While I would assert that Bob's lifestyle was healthy, it's very clear that as a sufferer of Cystic Fibrosis, his health was never good. Even though a diagnosis of CF, usually means a death sentence by the time a person reaches their early 20's, Bob Flanagan lived an amazing and eccentric life until his 40's.

This documentary can go from absolute joy to utter sadness in a few seconds. Despite his sickness, and his impending death, Bob Flanagan lived with an incredible zest for life, love, and Masochism.