graphicstyle7

Let me get this off my chest, the story IS NOT SET IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. IT IS SET SEVERAL DECADES PAST THE REVOLUTION. France has been around hundreds of years, assuming every fight scene you see set there is somehow part of the French Revolution is really annoying. Please stop, people. The battle they do show is a failed student uprising, again, several decades past the actual Revolution.

Victor Hugo looked around about 30 years AFTER the French Revolution, and wrote about what was going on AFTER the revolution. If you miss this point, you miss the point of the entire story, which is, "We had a revolution, NOW WHAT?"

The whole point is, they revolted, they killed a bunch of oppressors, but without proper structure of the government and society, not much improved or changed. Sad to say, this theme is still very relevant.

As for the movie itself, I actually met the second woman ever to play Fantine on stage. She was an extra in the "At the End of the Day" scene in this film, and a few others. She said Hugh Jackman was very aware he could not sing well, compared to the regular stage actors who filled out the cast, and was pretty depressed about it. I can partly understand the director's decision not to dub singing voices, but, I think it would of worked out. Then again, Mr. Jackman being stressed and unhappy may of helped with his character portrayal, so there's that.

I thought Anne Hathaway did a spectacular job as Fantine. The rest of the cast is great as well, and I'd really love to see Samantha Barks and/or Eddie Redmayne in other big films.

I read the book a while back, and have seen many adaptations. This musical is my favorite because it sticks closer to the book than almost every adaptation I've seen, and it conveys the emotions in the book with the shorthand of music. Seeing as it's a book well over 1000 pages, that really helps.

I've heard a few people complain already that "It's trying to be "Harry Potter".

The first book in the HDM trilogy was published two years BEFORE the first "Potter", so y'all can stop that nonsense right now. I like both franchises, but "His Dark Materials" is shorter, better written, and has deeper content.

I was let down by the movie adaptation, so I'm very happy to see this new version which can take its time and look and feel more like the book. I'm hoping it's a hit. This series is anything but predictable. I won't spoil it for anyone, but expect the unexpected.

"Stranger Things" has done a better job with 1980's suspense. Originally, the story was set in the 1950's, now it's updated, and amazingly bland and free of actual horror or surprises. It's almost like the writers and director went to some standard book of what scary movies had in the '80's, and just copied what they saw. EVERYTHING was predictable and boring.

Also, the lead female character, Beverly Marsh? Nope, I could of bought her as a 17 year old, not a young and inexperienced 13 -14 year old girl. Her character was ruined. Where's the abusive dad? Why write a scene showing her almost (ick) flirting with a pharmacist? She looked WAY too old to be hanging out with the pre-teen dudes. I'm hoping I see all the child leads in better roles, but Finn Wolfhard always has the much better "Stranger Things" to go back to.

This had to be one of the worst adaptations of a Stephen King story I've seen in a while.

I've lived in Florida most of my life, both totally broke and with funds. This film captures perfectly the atmosphere of the Florida they don't advertise. That's the Florida you see when you go outside of the big parks and new developments. The fringe areas where people end up when their lives become unmanageable for whatever reason. The warm climate and (on the surface) easygoing vibe of Florida make it a magnet for those down on their luck. Usually, these people are invisible, but this film tells their side.

I really don't understand the bad reviews for this. This is a "slice of life" movie, the kind you don't see often. It's not about shiny cars and explosions, it's about real people. Apparently, just like Disney, some of the more shallow members of our society have little empathy for those who can't afford life in these United States.

Heartbreaking, poignant, and very meaningful cinema of a type I don't often see. Watch it.

I still hear relics about the roles of women from time to time. "Women are not funny". is a staple.

What a lovely fantasy, to portray a woman whose sense of humor is her sanity and savior back when women were TOTALLY supposed to stay home, bake cakes, raise kids, and not ever be a smart ass, even one with wonderful wit.

There were so few women, Joan Rivers springs to mind, who actually got to do comedy back in the 50's and 60's. People's view of what a woman "should" do and be should of been more challenged.

It's a great "what could of been" and the comedy is very on target. Great roles for the leads, I hope it's on for a few seasons at least!

Here is how I feel about Gone With the Wind. My mom's side of the family is Southern. They lived mostly around where Scarlett and her gang hung out. Some had plantations and owned slaves. My grandparents were "old fashioned" in the clueless way Margaret Mitchell was. I've heard their side lots of times, and I found it to be wrong. If I were Black, I wouldn't like to pass by statues erected to past oppressors either, nor would I want to have flags in my face constantly reminding me of a sorrowful past.

However, please consider this.

1. If you're going to get upset at GWTW and ban showing it, then you would also want to eliminate the rest of the movies from back then which show stereotypes as well, correct? Unfortunately, ALMOST ALL, probably about 98% of Black roles for the stage and screen pre-1960's were just as racist as in GWTW, many were worse.

The problem is, if you get rid of these movies, you erase the work of any Black actors back then as well. You won't see why Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar for a performance in a land so bigoted, she could not sit in the audience during the premiere. You won't see lots of superb singing, dancing, and acting by any African-American during this time. They will be completely ignored because of the context.

You wind up punishing all these people who wanted to work in entertainment and had little influence over the roles they played as well as those whites who made those movies.

And...

2. Hollywood whitewashes and pretties up EVERYTHING. It always has. Don't get upset because they did it for the millionth time in GWTW.

Consider the movie "300", about ancient Sparta. There was no mention of slaves they owned, or the organized pedophilia that went into the training of boys (Google it if you don't know what I'm talking about).

And yet, there were no mass protests at the rose colored vision in the movie. No one came to picket the film because it omitted a horrendous flaw in Spartan society.

Why? Well, for one thing, that was well over 2000 years ago. What happened in Sparta is no longer directly relevant to anyone. No normal, modern army expects raping young boys as part of their training.

It's no longer relevant.

Unfortunately, GWTW IS STILL RELEVANT. Many of the problems portrayed in this film and any film from back then with Black actors are still haunting the U.S.. Denying that there is anything wrong and everything is just fine and has been fixed is simply denying reality.

Why do I care? Unfortunately, GWTW is one of my favorite books and films. It has a strong, still unique story of feminism I can relate to. That is what is relevant to me in the film. I have tended in the past to brush aside the slave part because it seems surreal to me to own people. I'm certainly not sitting there, hoping the "good ol' days" can come back. I like the modern world with its aim of acceptance and tolerance. I get the feeling the vast majority of viewers feel the same way.

How do we solve this problem? When Blacks are truly integrated, and that day will come, then GWTW will no longer be that relevant. It won't strike any raw nerves. The protests will die down, just as they have for every other hot button issue who's time has come and gone.

True classics never die. GWTW has many redeeming features which have made it endlessly entertaining to me and thousands of other people. Keep talking about it, show the movie now and then with perhaps a short lecture on history and context before, and know that in time, the pain will fade.

ALSO, KEEP IN MIND, when you criticize Scarlett for her actions, there was NO OTHER WAY to survive in the Victorian world if you were a woman other than SEDUCING A MAN. It's not like she could go off to college and get a degree. Women were NOT allowed to own land, have a bank account,vote, hold a job (besides perhaps a hat maker or, much more commonly, a prostitute) etc. If she seems strange for marrying men she didn't love,keep in mind it was that, or be totally broke and homeless.

Much of the criticism of her character comes from total lack of knowledge about this context.

As for the movie itself. I first saw it when I was thirteen. It made quite an impression. Forty years or so later, it still moves me. Some people criticize the main character, Scarlett, because she's "not nice". She's not "typical" of a main female character.

Scarlett behaves in an uncomfortably realistic way. She's not a nice lady, she is a super-rare female anti-hero. She's not comfortingly evil, but she's never going to be a goody two shoes. Some people don't know how to handle that.

Melanie, on the other hand, is criticized for being "unrealistic". I would ask anyone who thinks that to understand the context of the times she lived in. There was no mass media, save for the local newspaper, and that was hardly an international trove of information as they are now. No TV, no radio, no internet. A person could grow up to be innocent in a way we simply don't experience in modern society.

It's a movie about survival. And it's a war movie without battle scenes. I would urge you to watch it.

I'm reading some of the viewer reviews for this show. By a landslide, the bad reviews are from an offended male or Christian who feel abused, mis-represented, and the victim of exaggerated "Liberal Hollywood" touchy-feely media.

I have news for y'all. Look back 110 years ago in the U.S. and most Western countries. Guess what? NO "good" woman was allowed to travel alone (It ruined the reputation, and would invite comments and abuse.)Women could not have a bank account. Women could not vote. Women could not buy a house. It they wore improper clothing, they were arrested. And so on and so forth.

Don't get all full of yourselves because "radical" women in the past fought hard for the rights you say are just fine now. You, the Christian community and Conservative males, did everything you could to keep females "in their place", until it was not possible.

This is a great show. You may not like it, because it touches a very uncomfortable nerve, but it's a great theme and done well. You can point at the Middle East, and you'd be RIGHT, but look at yourselves while you do it. You're not the ones who made it possible to drive and vote and go about our own lives without being under a man in some way.

If you read some of the woman-bashing that goes on all day, every day, on the internet, you know this show is not that crazy, it's not that off the mark.

As for the cast, Elizabeth Moss seems to be the queen of popular TV productions. She was excellent on "Mad Men" and "Top of the Lake". I hope she gets an Emmy. The rest of the cast is great, Ann Dowd especially as the sinister yet upbeat Aunt Lydia.

The premise of the show is that fertility rates have plummeted. The cultural effect is that women are used for breeding material. Radical Christianity has taken over, and women are enslaved and sent to prominent households where they are used in a "ceremony" involving the husband and wife to make a child according to scripture.

I have been a Pee Wee fan ever since his Broadway show back in the '80's.

Part of the reason I liked him? That would be his crazy, highly imaginative world that seemed to be, especially back in the day, so accepting of others eccentricities and differences.

I enjoyed the first half of his most current movie. He hasn't changed a bit, and that's a good thing in many ways. His humor is classic. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That's why I was very surprised, hurt, and extremely put off when in the middle of this fluffy, happy comedy, one of the most mildewed, putrid tropes is dragged out of circa 1910 and aired out for no particular reason than to inspire actual cruelty and eat up time.

Hey, all you fat chicks! Guess what? It's still totally OK to see you as a one note joke the hero is desperately trying to escape! You are OK with that, right? I mean, just because it's 2016 and there's a strong movement to see you as actual people with talents, dreams (Besides getting married) and personalities doesn't mean we can't depict you as a highly insulting stereotype, right? I'm guessing this was in the writers head as he wrote this tired, sad, and ugly part into the movie. It's 2016, guys. Big girls go out on real dates and have real lives and actually don't appreciate being depicted as a monster.

Otherwise, it's an OK film. Next time, Mr. Rubens, leave the humor juvenile, but take out the mean spirit, OK?

Oh my god, is this movie terrible, or am I just getting old?

ACTION!

ACTION! ACTION! And WAIT FOR IT! MORE ACTION! No real plot. What story there is, is ridiculous. Seriously? "OK, we've just run through an amazingly savage gauntlet that killed most of us. We can't go this way, let's turn back around and run back through it!" With pretty ladies...Seriously?

I weep for the youth of the world who actually think this garbage, basically 2 hours of non-stop shooting and CGI, is "entertainment".

The basic philosophy seems to be "IF WE EXPLODE ENOUGH STUFF, IT'S GOOD! MORE STUFF? EVEN BETTER! What's character development and pacing?" Ew.

Well, I actually used to live in Tampa only a few years ago. I used to go to Ybor City and get into all sorts of fun mischief as well, so I feel I can speak with some authority when I say part of this movie is dead on, part is just ridiculous Hollywood fiction.

The part that's real? All the stuff that happens with sex, drugs, relationships... that's all very on-target and pretty well done. It's actually a bit tame compared to reality. If you want to have a crazy sex life fueled by drugs, this area is pretty much the place to be. I'm nowhere NEAR being a 20-something anymore, and my time as a single was, er, something I don't bring up at a family dinner.

I would say, though, that lifestyle is very much due to the fact that I used to live in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area.

As for the fantasy part:

Well, for starters, you can drive down the main roads of downtown-anywhere in a big U.S. city and see "Gentlemen's Clubs". That's probably because men LOVE to look at attractive, naked women.

Look for a club like the one they had in "Magic Mike"? Even in Tampa and Ybor, hey, guess what? You won't find ONE SINGLE "LADIES" STRIP CLUB IN THIS ENTIRE AREA. It's just not a thing even wild and crazy Tampa ladies are into. Females just don't seem to be wired like that, or someone would be doing it to make the kind of money "Gentlemen's Clubs" make.

It's a male, Hollywood fantasy to be nekked and showin' off the goods in front of a bunch of screaming ladies. You pretty much have to be in a rock band for that kind of adulation.

Unless you go to "Gay-bor" which is the openly and proudly gay section of Ybor. LOTS of that kind of activity going on over there.

Which brings me to the second, unrealistic part of the film. What? You can show wild sex and drugs and somehow NONE of those dancers are gay? NO ONE in the audience is a man? REALLY?

The last unrealistic thing actually really annoyed me more than the rest. The LAST HURRICANE that hit this part of Florida WAS IN 1921. Yep, almost 100 years ago. This part of the state is blessed to be out of a normal hurricane's path, thank God. And yet they kept referring to objects "Washed up by the hurricane" and then had a "hurricane party" during a "hurricane".

I doubt if the makers of this film have ever been through a hurricane of any strength. Even a tropical depression, the weakest form of hurricanes, can put a city down for a week. There is no power, and it's hard to get out and around.

An ACTUAL hurricane is scary as hell to sit through. Even a weak one will, without fail, knock out your power and beat up the area to the point that it takes a month or two to get back to normal. The brief radar shot they had on TV in the film would of messed up the character's lives for a while, not just been a backdrop for a party.

That's the fantasy part here. LOL.

Otherwise, some really nice performances of a fairly goofy script. I think I would of liked this very unique section of our country represented in a more gritty style. I miss the 1970's when movies took chances and didn't always have to have a happy, shiny ending.

It would of been a LOT more interesting picture to go to some of Ybor's actual night clubs, The Castle for example, one of the biggest Goth clubs in the country. Basing the film on the crazy party/drugs/sex scene in Ybor would of been quite a bit more compelling than showing a business that does not even exist here.

Really liked this movie. I had no idea Marianne Faithful was the star until the credits! I love the older woman coming out of her shell by doing sex work. It had a lot to say that I find (heh, from not exactly the same, but close, personal experience)to be VERY true about sex and confidence. Films about older women are few and far between, I'd love to see more of this type of story.

I can't tell you how fed up I am with all action films all the time with female characters which are no more than an excuse for the action. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against attractive young women or action films, it's just that the subject is done to death and beyond these days. I'm happy to see, even if it is a few years old, someone trying something different.

This was amateur film making at its worst. I was amazed that any effort went into the awful plot with pretty much terrible acting. I'm sure high school students, seriously, have done better films.

It really irked me as well that instead of using their time and effort in a much more creative fashion, we got a stale, stereotyped characters with no depth. None of them were worth caring about. If you have no budget and nothing to loose, why not try to be original?

The lead female and black cop were the only bright spots. They may have some sort of future in acting. The rest need to find something else to do with their time.

I hate this film for two reasons:

1. Steve Martin is in it. Why? Why? Why? When did this very talented and funny man go from innovative genius to doofus in a stupid family movie? Really ruined his image for me.

2. OK, take a TRUE STORY which also happens to be an interesting piece of American history as well. Then take the (extremely well made) movie version from 1950, throw in the (also well done) sequel in as well. Chuck them all down the toilet and mix in stupid jokes, and you get this dreck.

Ew Ew Ew

When people look up the phrase "the dumbing down" of America, they should have a picture of the 2003 version of this film next to that phrase. Sums it up perfectly.

This is a very charming, sweet, funny movie I can watch over and over again. In a very unassuming way it says a lot about men and women and what is expected of them. I like the way girls are portrayed as real individuals... something not often done in any kind of film these days. Rob Schneider does an excellent and hysterically funny job as a girl in a man's body and the different things he has to deal with.

I think both Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider have had a lot to offer through the years and have been sniffed at by the critics because they have "lowbrow" forms of comedy. This is a film definitely worth a look if you have missed it before or believed the reviews.