RitchCS

*** This review contains spoilers *** Once again, I come here baffled by the fact that there should be an age limit for amateur reviewers using the same guidelines the MPAA uses for rating moviegoers. So often, a brilliant movie such as "Dogtooth" comes from out of the blue and dozens of 'too young' viewers offer their criticism which is obviously going to be, "This is the worst movie I've ever scene!". The MPAA should and would have put an NC-17 rating on this film and no underage kid should be allowed to review it on the IDMB message board. With the exception of Chloe Sevigny and Vincent Gallo uncensored oral sex scene, the Elder daughter masturbating her brother to a full erection before having incest intercourse, this indeed was an adults only movie. Setting the graphic sex aside, the story is excellently, poignant, somewhat humorous, while remaining highly dramatic...very difficult to compare to any other American made film...maybe, "American Beauty" or Dylan Baker in "Happiness". I was so grateful to the writers who left messages on this board... about 90% arriving at the same conclusion that the Elder did not make i out of the trunk alive. Fortunately, I was able to watch it on "Pay For View" on ATT U-verse or I might never have seen it. However, as the camera focuses on the motor running, the movie ended and there was about 30 seconds of a solid blue screen as if the 'complete' ending had been clipped and edited with the blue screen before starting the closing credits. Two more items which helped solidify the ending consensus was when Papa accepted the fact that Elder was gone, he told his wife he would pick up his dog the next day as the dog should have gone through phase five of its obedience training and the following morning with Elder in the trunk, he went to the animal shelter...that was not his work place. He told his wife that the dog would help fill up the void left by Elder. The second clue was that Younger was now sleeping with her brother in a spoon position, then turning to kiss him as she would take the place of Elder supplying the brother's needs. Years ago, in the 60's when Bergman and Fellini were both grand masters of movies FILLED with symbolic characters, props, and plot lines, quite often their films would just end which allowed us avid moviegoers to discuss these movies for weeks to come. "What did he mean by this?" or "What did the priest in total darkness carrying two pigeons?" represent. This movie was a masterpiece and I'm dying to see, "In a Better World" to see just how much better it was supposedly to beat "Dogtooth" for the 2011 Foreigh Language Film Oscar.

One can sit down and make a list of the movies that SHOULD be released on DVD and make an even longer list of the ones that should NEVER have been put on VHS, much less DVD or Blu-Ray. Academy Award nominated screenplays, performances, direction, etc. To mention just a few, why hasn't "The Dark At the Top of the Stairs" by William Inge with Oscar nominated performance by the wonderful 'music man', Robert Preston never been released on DVD? How about, "Dear Heart" with two of the greatest actors and performances ever captivated on celluloid, the amazing Geraldine Page (Oscar nominated) and the ever-always great, Glen Ford? Where's Ted Turner's push to save great films? Where is Martin Scorsese doing the same? One could scratch their head wondering. But one could scratch his head until it bleeds wondering why this masterpiece of dialogue and monologues as only Herb Gardner could write, is sitting on some dusty shelf turning to immortal dust. As a write said (above my message) Irwin Corey's speech is one that will never be forgotten by those of us lucky enough to have seen "Thieves". Had the film been made in black and white with a monster as a character, it would have been on the DVD rental shelves YEARS AGO. Marlo Thomas and Charles Grodin, BOTH terrific actors, giving two award-deserving performances only alive in the memory of the few of us who loved the film. MARTIN! TED! PLEASE! Don't overlook this title while you're deciding which movies to save...add "Dark at the Top" and "Dear Heart" to the list as well! THANX!!!

I haven't seen this movie, but the DVD is due to arrive in the mail tomorrow. I logged onto IMDb to see what other viewers had to say. Don't EVER question why there are very few gay movies made. Every old queen and every too young adventurer always become superior critics. This is a gay movie. It does not star Meryl Streep, Robert DeNiro, or Sean Penn. Gays movies cannot accumulate large budgets and do the best they can with the material and cast they can find to work for free or pennies. I remember the first big studio gay movie, "Making Love" with Harry Hamlin, Michael Ontkean, and Kate Jackson, directed by Arthur Hiller. This movie was blasted bigger than Nagasaki. It all but ended Hamlin's and Ontkean's careers. It took a quarter of a century to get the venomous taste out of the critics mouths before "Brokeback Mountain" was finally accepted. BUT, how many major gay films have been made since? The most popular gay novel in the world, "The Front Runner" has been sitting on some studios shelf for nearly half a century. Everyone is afraid of either making it or starring in it. Hats off to the producer of "Watercolors" for putting forth the effort. It did win two major LBGT film festival awards. BUT as another reviewer stated, the cast was excellent except for the coach. MAN! He's the reason I'm seeing the movie. Greg Louganis, not only an Olympic Champion, but a drama major. Why was his acting singled out? Couldn't that sentence have been omitted? Why must we as gays, destroy our own culture...music, theatre, movies??? Can't we EVER find words of praise to encourage MORE gay entertainment? Remember the old adage, "If you can't find something good to say...". I'm really looking forward to enjoying this movie tomorrow. ______________________________ addendum: I finally saw the movie this afternoon and it's haunted me the rest of the evening. One of the two leads has practically no experience at all, yet he sustained his character as a professional. I really found nothing to criticize...only words of praise and hope that this will be the first of many features by the director. The entire cast was superb. Music was expertly used. I don't watch gay porn, but I do collect gay films with good stories...THIS is one of the best. It ranks high with "Latter Days" and "Shelter". Ten Stars!

This is the first DVD I've ever seen that should be accompanied by a warning label. "Warning! If you play this DVD, it might take a long time to eliminate the stench this movie will leave inside your player!". I read all these rave reviews about "One of the top ten films of 2009!", "A masterpiece!", "The crowning achievement of Swanberg's direction..." Did I get the wrong DVD inside the Netflix envelope. I date back to movies and theatre back to the early 60's...having graduated at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, and private study with Uta Hagen, Harold Clurman, Stella Adler, and the incomparable Lee Strasberg at Actors Studio. I love heavy drama and improvisational theatre, but this movie...well, in the Bonus selections, the director explains that the first week's shooting was almost deleted completely as they didn't know what direction or tone to direct this story in. So he kept a total of 72 minutes to complete his 'masterpiece'. I defy anyone to explain which direction they landed. This is really not a spoiler, but in the first two minutes, we meet two beautiful blonde lesbians performing a private commitment ceremony...'til death do us part'...then they next 65 minutes they proceed to have sex with any greasy, extremely ugly men...probably the only actors willing to take part in this piece of expletive. There's some nudity for no reason at all except to make the film 'daring'...finally, it ends...well rather, the movie seems to stop in mid-scene for, again, nor reason. Josh Hamilton plays a small role as a screenwriter...he looked almost as embarrassed as I felt watching it. This is one of those prime examples of the Emperor's new clothes. EVERYBODY bragged on the completed film and no one was brave enough to say it was crudely made with no plot or especially a reason for making this in the first place. The score was cheered by some critics. An electric piano, a guitar, and a female singer who sounded more like a cat in heat. I remember when Andy Warhol painted his famous tomato soup can and everyone raved. I had an entire shelf of Campbell's soup in my cupboard which I'd paid LESS than one dollar (back in 1960). But this movie was like unveiling the soup can without the label, just a naked tin can. Was it art? Who's to say? Is this film an art film? I, for one, say, except for the two lead females, this film has NOTHING to offer. Not only does the can not have a label, the can is totally empty inside.

I generally don't write scathingly bad reviews, especially to first time film makers. It's better to obey the adage, 'if you've got nothing good to say, then...". However, this is an exception. I write this as an alert to anyone who might buy this DVD for its terrific cover art or even plop down five bucks to rent at your local BB store. I'm an avid movie fan and see over a thousand films per year...especially independent films which I like to champion...now here comes the BUT... "Praxis" is the first movie I've ever seen where the viewer at home can leave his TV set, go into the kitchen, fix a full meal, take a johnny break and come back to the movie and see exactly the same scenes before you left the TV. Yes, I watched 'The Making Of Praxis" on the DVD and saw how carefully, the director cast his first film...seeing thousands of headshots and interviewing dozens for his male lead. Tom Macy was chosen...a young actor with great potential who even admits, he was never sure whether he was pleasing the director and kept wishing for the director to 'say something'. The director states in the 'making of' that there's little or NO dialogue, rather he wanted the actors to bring the emotions to the set and let him film what 'they' were thinking. This is a good technique for some productions, but when the idea of the film was in the director's head and he forgot to tell his cast, much less the audience. To create monotony or how 'depression' must feel, we see the same exact shots over and over and over six, eight, ten, maybe twelve times...when ONCE would be enough. You don't have to hit your audience on the head as if we're all dummies...we got the point in the first five minutes. There's a scene where our second male lead is punching a boxing bag. This scene lasts longer than an entire Steven Seagal movie. After maybe 45 minutes, the director puts a pseudo-documentary on Tom's TV explaining to Tom AND to us what 'fragmented identity' is. OHHHH! Is that why we're seeing the same fragments six and eight times? FINALLY after 61 minutes, the film has a nude swimming scene...not sexy...but it was at least, something we hadn't seen before in the first hour. Then the movie is pretty good before the credits roll some 18 minutes later. The ENTIRE first hour could have been left on the cutting room floor and NEVER missed for a second. Fair warning, if you attempt to watch it all in one sitting, I think you won't last after the first 20 minutes. OK, so the kid's depressed. There's a 30 second commercial running currently on TV for an antidepressant and that little ad has more depth, more story, and more professionalism than the entire 93 of "Praxis". I would also suggest that if you DO want to watch it, join Netflix or Blockbuster online video and use one of your monthly rentals. It's the cheapest way to see it. IF someone else DOES watch it, would you be kind enough to explain who the old Hispanic-looking bum waving from his rocking chair represented? I haven't figured that one out yet. I REALLY felt sorry for the two actors, wrapped up in the joy of playing leading roles in a promising independent film...BOTH just 'dying' to be cast and having NOTHING to work with...no script (I doubt if there's 25 lines of dialogue in the entire film) and absolutely NO direction. I hope and I'm positive that somewhere in the director's mind, there is a good and interesting film...but his cast nor his audience never got to see it. BIG SPOILER: Young man has number one bestseller, gets writer's block, gets depressed, hooked on antidepressants, attempts suicide, while all the time his main problem is...is he straight or gay? I still think the Cymbalta ad on TV is a better movie.

I've been an avid movie fan for half a century and try to keep up with new releases. Tuesday is Neflix/Blockbuster online day IF I can find enough titles that interest me. I read a brief description of 'MZB' and noticed the cast...especially Paddy Considine and figured if Uma Thurman, Jonathan Pryce, AND Paddy had chosen to be in this movie, it MUST have some merit. I watched five DVD's before I put this one into the player. FIRST, I was astonished to see it was an HBO Film. HBO who doesn't miss and HBO who offers some of the best entertainment in the world. I was caught up in the plot during the first sixty seconds and my eyes stayed glued to the TV for the next seventy-two minutes. Perhaps a seventy-three minute film is not the usual box office fare, but this was one of the most brilliantly written, acted, and directed films I've seen all year. It could be Uma Thurman's best acting ever. Paddy Considine only gets better with each movie and has become one of my favorites. The problems of addiction to alcohol and love were equally expressed and portrayed by this wonderful small ensemble. David Hare, who wrote the stage play, adapted it for the movie and did a magnificent job. IF you're looking for sex and action, leave this one on the shelf of your favorite video store...but if you're a lover of serious drama...PUT THIS ONE ON YOUR LIST TO SEE! I can't wait to see new comments appear on this message board once the film has been noticed by the American audiences!

It doesn't happen often...sometimes once or twice in a decade when something so powerful is presented on television. But when it does, your eyes are glued to the TV screen, your heart is a lump in your throat...you're not even aware you're breathing if it weren't for the gasps you make while delving into the tissue box for the third or fourth tissue. One of those rare moments occurred Saturday night when HBO presented, "Taking Chance" starring Kevin Bacon. It was repeated several times during the night and early morning and will have countless showings this week.

Most of you are familiar with Col. Strobl's true account of escorting US Marine PFC Chance Phelps' body from Dover Delaware to Wyoming where Chance was buried. Chance died on good Friday 2004. Eight days later he was buried in Wyoming. Strobl's journal has been read by millions on the Internet. The screenplay was co-written by the handsome Colonel with the Phelps' family's permission.

Kevin Bacon, one of the most unrewarded fantastic talents in Hollywood, played the Colonel to perfection. The movie was a very short 78 minutes but seemed as if it lasted for several hours. It's not depressing, nor is it anti-war as Chance was killed by a roadside bomb and attack on a road in Iraq.

It was an education for me to see the care and painstaking respect each person gave in honor of the fallen soldier...whether it was the military personnel who cleaned the body, pressed the new uniform with new service ribbons or the kid driver who drove Kevin to the airport...the baggage handlers, the airline ticket seller, other marines, vets, friends or strangers to Chance, the amount of military ritual of respect has never been portrayed as convincingly beautiful before.

I couldn't help but think of how President Bush, VP Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld ordered the press not to take pictures of the returning KIA vets or show their coffins, but rather sneak the fallen into the country during early morning hours to keep the public from seeing or honoring these heroes. I remember during the Korean Conflict or the Vietnam War, numerous photos were taking for all to see...in a dignified way for their extreme sacrifice...while Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld always gave the impression that they were ashamed that the soldiers had been so careless to be killed. I suppose if you don't see something, then it never happened! To me that was Bush's team's way of thinking.

I hope the four-thousand plus families and friends of our Iraqi fallen soldiers get to see this movie as it will show them how much the military DOES honor its own.

IF any of you didn't see it...please make an effort to visit a friend who subscribes to HBO and make it a point to watch, "Taking Chance".

Depressing? Perhaps...but I felt more pride inside than grief. Every person in the movie who was the least bit connected to Chance's journey was moved...and so was I.

I collect movies...ALL kinds of movies and have several thousand in my collection...which means I see thousands of movies every year. I'd never heard of "An American Crime" until Netflix put it into my queue as a recommendation. I knew absolutely nothing about the film except for the cast. I'd watch Catherine Keener do a Dairy Queen commercial and give her a standing ovation. Forty minutes into the film, I became aware that I was clutching the arms on my chair. I was short-winded as I'd been holding my breath but didn't know it. I almost cheated and ran the movie fast forward just to see how it would end as I was terrified by what I was viewing. This movie should have been hailed by critics and had long lines outside the box office. Ellen Page and Catherine Keener were superb as was the entire cast...not even a 'walk-on' was miscast. James Franco, stepped out of the box to play an unlikeable character as did Jeremy (Peter Pan) Sumpter. If you love good movies, heavy drama, and fantastic acting...this is one to put on your MUST SEE list. When the movie finally did end. I just cut off my TV set. I couldn't watch anything of equal magnitude, no matter what was showing on any channel. One of the best films of all time...and the most horrifying in my entire collection...bar none!

How did this movie slip by the general public without rave reviews and heavy box office? Some studio missed making a bundle by not producing and distributing this film. Granted, I watched the DVD, having few choices this week from Netflix and from the first chord of James Horner's mesmerizing musical score, I was drawn in unlike any film I've seen this year and I usually see up in the thousands per year. Uma and Evan Rachel have never been better. The extras on the DVD are spoilers so watch the feature first. I was so entranced by each scene that when the final scene appeared, I didn't have a clue as the script was so tightly written. The novel's author was first a poet and her hand at prose is equally as good. I watched it a second time immediately to watch for clues and flaws...there were none. The director, DP, writer, set designer, and the entire cast are ALL Oscar worthy. Maybe the Independent Spirit Awards will heap honors on it next winter. I can see how the film might turn off teen viewers, but to regular adult moviegoers, do NOT miss this movie!

---SPOILER ALERT---This critique discusses the end of the movie.

I shouldn't be writing about this movie as I do NOT like comedies. I'd never heard of "Meet Bill" until I was desperately trying to find some movies to put in my Netflix queue for the week. I saw this new film listed, starring Aaron Eckhart, who, IMO, KNOWS how to pick good scripts and is a favorite actor whom I enjoy and admire. When the DVD arrived in the mail today, I was not in the mood for a comedy, but I slid it in my DVD tray anyway, I watched about the first five minutes standing up to make an exit into the kitchen...but instead, I sat down and started enjoying, as well as laughing out loud, at this wonderful little independent comedy. I hadn't read a synopsis, so I really couldn't outguess the screenwriter where the plot was headed. Then I got the clue where we were about to go and how the movie would probably end...but NO! The movie just ended without giving any of us a clue what was going to happen. Ten more minutes...even FIVE...a paragraph, ONE LINE...SOMETHING...I mean it IS a comedy for crying out loud...where's the comic ending? I'll bet there's a couple of dozen yards of film on the cutting room floor which would have pleased me and everyone else and who knows, it might have been a hit. It's really a good film that leads the audience to a cliff and there's no more road. Even an alternate ending on the DVD would have been fantastic! Now I have to wonder if this is the real reason why I hate comedies? The kid playing 'The Kid", Logan Lerman is gonna be a huge star. He and Aaron made a great team. He has NO inhibitions for his age and all but walks away with the movie from more experienced actors. The ending written for "The Kid" sucked as well. If I MISSED At this point, I don't know if he and Elizabeth stayed together...what was he going to do about a job? Anyone have any ideas?

I never understand why people who hate a movie, take the time to write paragraphs about it. Why not just let it go and try to find some film which they like and say something good about it? I'm an avid moviegoer and collector as I have some 30,000 titles in my library and I see hundreds of new films every year. "The Walker" didn't play in a theatre near me, so I had to wait for the DVD to be released. I enjoyed it so much, I had to sit through it a second time, immediately. It's so rare to find a movie written by an adult, for adults, with an all adult cast. It's been years since I've been so entertained as I was with the dialogue and the cast all in one movie. So often in IMDb, teens will review a movie which they would never understand even it they HAD been educated and write sordid remarks of how boring a movie is...or 'the worst movie I've ever seen...'. Too bad that the editors at IMDb can't cull out these remarks when all the teens are doing is destroying a work of art. I would bet none have ever been to a symphony concert, an opera, a ballet, a live drama, but they're quick on the draw when it comes to criticizing something without car chases or cheap gag lines.IF you are a person who likes GOOD movies, do yourself a favor and see "The Walker". It's Woody's best performance...and MAN! What a treat to see Lauren Bacall still strut her stuff. She may be an octogenarian, but she can STILL act. Lily Tomlin was equally as wonderful. I won't single out all the actors, just those three performances are enough to rent or buy the DVD.

People are raving how funny this movie is...WOW! They, too, must be on drugs. Wes and Scott must've been high when they accepted to do this film. A waste of two very fine actors! I wanted to like it. It's only ninety minutes long and after the first seventy minutes, I still hadn't cracked a smile. I sat through the final twenty minutes, hoping for a big finish...but that petered out as well. If you want to rent a good comedy, rent one WITH 'Weirdsville' because you won't laugh at this one. I'd really have to look long and hard to find a movie I've enjoyed less. People who found this hilarious are gonna die laughing when they see 'Atonement'.

Wow! I get to be a movie critic or so most people think who write on this message board. Horrors! It was shot on tape using a digicam! Is that bad? It didn't have LucasFilm Surround Sound...which automatically makes it a bad picture. And OHHH, those actors. Not a one of them ever won an Oscar...no talent whatsoever! The subject matter is shocking and poorly developed through a weak script. Sorry, no Pulitzer this time! Why are these matters taken into account and must be criticized. The people had little or no money. Probably no member of the cast or crew were paid a dime...but they MADE their film in spite of all their professional needs and MY HAT'S Off TO THEM. One thing I've learned in my long lifespan is that people don't walk around with their ages tattooed on their foreheads. Love comes from the heart, the mind, the emotions, fun, laughter, wanting to be with that certain 'someone'. If the friendship leads to sex, if they're both willing...it's THEIR choice not society's. People can't be satisfied living their own lives, they have to involve themselves in other people's lives and set the rule and the moral limits for others when it's really none of their business. It's the same in most society standards. I don't drink or smoke and I don't want you to have the right to drink or smoke because it's against my rules/ I'm not gay so it's wrong for anyone else to be gay and I'll vote to make sure that MY rules are enforced (even though it doesn't affect me or my family or friends...I just don't want YOU to be gay. Getting back to the movie...Eban is 29 and Charley is 15...but they talk and feel on the same plane. What one feels, so does the other. Neither if forcing the other to do anything he doesn't like. Stay in your own domain and don't set your rules for others. They could set a few of theirs toward your not minding your own business!

I rented this movie from Netflix and saw the running time 1:13...too short to a feature and too long to be a featurette. After fifteen minutes, I was already looking at my watch. Seldom have I seen so many misfit romances and affairs, it almost became laughable. The gay lead desiring sex from a hag who preferred a Lesbian in college. He was too effeminate to believe he desired her for sex. SPOILER: The people who got hurt were their two boyfriends back home...and her boyfriend preferred sex from our male lead. I kept wishing they would ALL die and end this piece of tripe halfway through. I watched until the end hoping there might be some redeemable value...but the ending only was worse...especially the tag-line at the end. The only conclusion I drew from this film was that the director must hate gay people to portray them in such a negative dysfunctional manner. Had I paid full price for admission, I would've asked my money back. Seventy-three minutes is too short for any film. The producer should have paid the audience nine bucks to sit through it!

From the tens of thousands of movies I've seen, it's sometimes difficult to pick my favorite. However, after watching 118 minutes of 'A Slice Of Terror', I will now have a definitive answer when asked what is the worst movie I've ever seen. This is it! The teens in the picture must have been doing time in some prison and got their sentences reduced by playing the nude scenes. Forget about the acting because there is no acting in the entire film. This might be a good film to show at a Christmas party with guests you wish to leave early. Webster doesn't have any word to describe how awful this movie is. (I even hate to call it a movie as I'm not sure what it was).

I picked up the DVD at my local BB store as I always look for 'single copy' films on the shelves. Quite often I'll find a jewel amongst the dust...and "Tweek City" turned out to be quite an unexpected good indie feature. The acting was WAY above par. The better than good photography and editing (saving 86 minutes of the original 120) was just enough to hold my interest. It's a dark, dank story lived mostly true-life from the writer/director, but so honest about the low-life of drug-dealing/using...it almost rose to the level of a real-life documentary. It's not the kind of movie one rents to enjoy, but to spend an hour and a half living someone else's life and the horrors of drug induced paranoia can bring. I worked many years in drug rehab and this is one of the most convincing portrayals I've seen in several years. I'm sorry that my previous critics on this page were not entertained, but I was absorbed from the first frame to the last and highly recommend it to Indie fans as myself!

Was the cast and crew on drugs before they started filming this? There was a hole in the plot...so big...nothing could have filled it up. From the first scene when the co-star is late for dinner, was there any doubt where he was and what he had just done? The suspense was over from there. Now, it was going to take another 85 minutes before the mystery was solved. I must confess that the biggest hole in the plot kept me awake for hours, wondering how dumb the screenwriter, the director, Chrisian Slater, Molly Parker, and Stephen Rea could be not to at least explain how our murderer, who was not a lawyer, or a policeman, could go into a locked cell at a jail, kill his second victim, and tie him up from a noose to make it look like suicide??? I kept wondering if I had fallen asleep out of sheer boredom and missed how that happened. If someone can explain it to me, please do...and then, why, for God's sake, did he kill the third victim? Nothing made sense...and yet, someone thought this film was worthy to be an official selection at a film festival. Perhaps it was a comedy and I failed to laugh.

Unlike the previous three reviewers, I didn't meet any of the cast or crew. So I wasn't as carried away as they were. I saw it on Palm On Demand TV. As two others have already said, I couldn't understand why the story wasn't carried straight through without trying to follow two or three back flashes of the story simultaneously. The convention to keep track of the time was to notice the different hairstyles and beards. The acting was above par, especially Justin. The movie only ran 70 minutes, just above the time of a featurette instead of a full-blown feature. Running out of film and budget apparently, the writer and director chose not to end the picture but leave it up to the viewer's decision. I felt as if I had been gypped. While only wasting an hour and ten minutes of my life, I would like for the story to have some conclusion or resolution. Even if it meant one more day of shooting on a VidCam, no one was being paid in the first place. Why not film ten to twenty more minutes? It was like a great premise but it stopped before it got to the main story. This is not a spoiler for in the first scene, we already know that our hero just got out of serving three years in prison. Now we want to know what will happen after he gets out. Instead, the story flashes back to tell us why he went to prison and then stops. I'm only glad I didn't plop down eight bucks to see the beginning of a good movie. It was like in the old days when the film broke in the theatre or someone forgot to send the last reel. A good try, but next time, if they're going to make a movie. Give us ninety minutes at least. With a good editor, the final film could have been cut down to thirty minutes. If anyone wants to see it, don't rent it or see it at a movie house, see it on TV.

Any negative comments about this movie and only come from a teenage Friday night action movie buff or someone who knows nothing about dance. I won't rave about how good it is because you'll discover that yourself one you see the DVD. It could be the supreme dance movie. The choreography and dancing is the best I've seen in fifty years of 'dance' movies. Patrick Swayze, his wife Lisa Niem, George De La Pena are supposed to be over-the-hill dancers, but in real life...they are far from it. All three, plus a brilliant ensemble dance to perfection. If you're a dancer or love movies about dancers, this is a definite must-see! Ten stars for sure!

Uh oh! Another gay film. This time it's showing the black side. Bet your last dollar it's gonna have an unhappy ending! But WHY? With only less than a half dozen exceptions, ALL gay films have to end in death or an "addio" finale. It's like all the European Film Noir releases in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's. The lead...male or female must die or ride off alone into oblivion. Why in God's name must writers, directors, and producers have the audience leave the theatre feeling depressed? After all, it's supposed to be gay...not glum. Maybe the category should be changed to a 'glum' film. A large percentage of gay relationships DO last and the couples DO ride off together into the sunset! No matter who writes or produces, he only shows the down side of gay life and gives the incorrect impression of gay lifestyle. This movie just proves my point. If you rent the DVD, take an antidepressant, for here comes another 'gay' film! This is WRONG!

Having not read the book, I had no way to compare how faithful the HBO production was to its original source. The movie on the whole was brilliant with a brilliant cast. There should be more offerings from the great stars who made Hollywood works of art instead of most of the schlock movie remakes we see today at movie theatres. Paul Newman completely disguises himself in "EF" and is nothing less than magnificent! Seeing Joanne Woodward only made me angry that we have been deprived of her talent way too long. Ed Harris continues to be one of Hollywood's most gifted actors as does Aidan Quinn. Phillip Seymour Hoffman has already proved himself as being the "Meryl Streep" of character roles. Robin Wright Penn, probably the most beautiful American actress makes us wonder why she doesn't make more films as her talent is equivalent to her beauty. Helen Hunt...why did you just 'disappear' after winning your Oscar? Her performance was solid and professional. William Fichtner and Dennis Farina show that they are often overlooked because they deliver in the movie as they always do.

The reason I gave this movie only eight stars is because I objected to the exposition. Too much is explained which was probably already explained many years ago. Joanne Woodward telling Ed Harris about all the paintings in her house. He's probably seen and heard this dozens of times. The puzzle about Ed Harris and William Fichtner's former friendship was pounded over and over to the point I kept expecting to find out that the two had had a gay teen relationship and outgrew it. Also the fact that Ed (Miles) was a 'mama's boy' and was never turned on sexually while married to Helen Hunt for twenty years. Did all women turn him off or did he compare all women to his mother? Finally, when the audience finds out that Aidan Quinn was the love child of Robin and Phillip, I was hoping for a scene where Aiden (David) could lay claim to some of the Whiting fortune. Then everything was tied together in a final scene followed by a narrative epilogue which would have made a great final thirty minutes since Paul Newman explained that HBO gave them carte-blanche budget and time slot for two two-hour segments. The first was 1:47 and the second 1:26. It should have been stretched. As far as the Miles/Jimmy relationship and David's inheritance, I don't know if Russo put that in his book, but the screenplay built up the situations and neither took place. As far as it went, the movie was fantastic. Joanne's final scene could have been set up better than just action above a narrative tie-up.

I really liked the tone, story, acting, photography..."Everything" about this film, but I'm still unsure how it ended. The following is a definite spoiler, so don't read any further. The fight scene at the river between Josh Lucas and Jamie Bell. Josh pushes Jamie's head under the water while Jamie stabs Josh with a knife. We see Josh die and we don't see Jamie coming up alive out of the water. Then there is a blackout and we see Jamie and his little brother with their grandparents at the hospital where Jamie is recovering from the supposed 'drowning'. The grandparents tell Jamie that they will take care of them and Grandma entices them with the food she's going to cook for them at her house. Was this a dream sequence or an imagined scene in the little brother's mind or was Jamie dead or alive. On the DVD director/star audio track, Jamie says, "Here's where Josh drowns me"...which says that Jamie did die from drowning, but the added scene at the hospital still has me confused. Could someone please write a SPOILER reply and enlighten me about the ending?

First of all you must be an adult who likes serious drama to watch this film, otherwise, negative comments don't qualify. For a first time director to helm a cast of extremely talented actors, he's created a drama just short of a masterpiece. Joseph Fiennes is one of the most underrated actors working today. His mastery of the American southern dialect is superb. Elizabeth Shue, who is constantly overlooked when juicy female roles are doles out, once again delivers a remarkable performance as does Deb Unger in a lesser and difficult role. Sam Shepard and Dennis Hopper are up to par as usual. This talented cast worked for scale and for the sheer love of the project and it shows. For a low-budget independent film, the DP went to great lengths to set up unusual photography and is better than most 'A' pictures. The flashbacks and present day stories are combined so well and naturally, it's easy for anyone to follow the engrossing plot of a kid, born out of wedlock, the night his mother's husband and daughter were killed in an auto accident. Shue, the mother, blames Leo, (Fiennes) the rest of his life which leads him to murder and prison while trying to save his mother's life. But even then, she won't come to his defense. It's a cold picture of child abuse and neglect of a smart intelligent kid longing to be loved while always trying to do the right thing, no matter the consequence. The movie is heavy drama and if you expect less, you'll be disappointed.

This movie had so much going for it, I guess, if you saw it in a theatre. But the DVD is a challenge. The sound quality is so poor, even with my stereo surround equipment, that total scenes are inaudible, just mumbling. The blackouts between scenes are too long, making you feel that the movie has stopped. Then occasionally, you get to see a complete scene, well-lighted, and audible and you discover that the acting is quite good and the script is more than passable. It's unfair to rate this film by the lack of quality in the transfer from screen to DVD video. It's a mess...and it shouldn't be! Wait for another Gay Film Festival and hopefully someone will revive it. But if you're seeing it for the first time at home...forget it and rent "Latter Days", "The Man I Love", or "The Trip" instead.

I was a skeptic about spending seven bucks to see this since I was probably the only viewer in the world who didn't like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". So, I waited for Netflix to send me the DVD. Got it today and watched it. Extremely funny picture until I saw the "DVD Bonus Material". There's fifty minutes of background, research, deleted scenes and musical numbers, outtakes, etc. and I felt I would've been robbed my admission if I hadn't been able to see what the director, Michael Lembeck deleted. The movie was only 98 minutes, including credits. I think Lembeck sold his audience short thinking that the film would be too long if he included thirty more seconds of Debbie Reynolds song...or the opening (male?) quartet in the finale...just one more minute. Mr. Lembeck, in the future, don't underestimate the knowledge of your audience...or don't let us see what you thought to be unworthy to fit into this film. There were some great scenes cut...which would have only added maybe ten extra minutes to the film. Give us our money's worth next time...or let someone else do your editing!