jamesfrancishall

The definitive example of trash. Better to be stepping on nail tacks than watch this again. I just watched the trailer and all I can say is that Santa Inc. Is the quintessence of utter trash. I would rather have all my limbs hacked off than watch that trailer once more. What is the very first joke in it? "Let's get these f****n' kids these f****n' presents!" No, I am not joking. That is the first 'joke' you hear in the trailer. The main character, an elf, says the f-word. OH MY GOSH, THAT IS SO FUNNY! The humor is so flat and dull that the writers simply resort to using vulgarity as its humor. Saying an f-word is not funny. Santa Inc. Would have been one million times better if it was just of a guy staring in the camera saying "poo-poo, pee-pee" for five hours strait while eating fifteen blocks of cheese in one setting. Even that is funnier than this. You do not even need to watch the show to know how abominable it is. The jokes are so desperate and stupid that having a pencil stabbing my eye ten times is funnier than that.

Now we have shown that the humor is terrible. But even though that is a huge problem, that is not quite the biggest one. It is an explicitly left-wing show. The show is strongly against traditional values, but it literally MOCKS CHRISTMAS! This show is only designed to create hatred by attacking Christians. No, it is not like "The Simpsons" kind of humor where is simply makes mild jabs at religion as a whole. Instead, it attacks Christianity explicitly. It is also saying "wHiTe mMEnN BaDd!". It literally is left-wing propaganda in a nutshell. In fact, it IS leftist propaganda. And if you ARE going to make leftist propaganda, though you really should not, but if you ARE going to make it, make it at least somewhat funny. Maybe not even funny, just at least partially capable of telling a joke. For me, it is easy to make a dumb and basic joke that may be able to get a chuckle out of someone. For them, it is simply impossible to tell a joke properly. In summary, if you are going to watch movies and TV shows on HBO Max, watch something good, not this trash. Would I be more willing to be waterboarded and simultaneously kicked in the ribs one hundred times rather than what is this once more? Probably. It is just such trash, that I genuinely think people who love this show should get at least get therapy.

It garbage.

Trash.

An abomination.

Bad.

Simply the essence of poop.

The worst show in existence.

God bless all who read this and bye!

Joseph Mankiewicz's gigantic historical epic Cleopatra has plenty to rave about; its sets are realistic and colossal, and its cinematography, its visuals are phenomenal, and it has a grand, moving, and sweeping score, but it sags heavily. It's length, which is 251 minutes (4 hours and 11 minutes), makes boredom very possible. I am not saying that all movies that are long are boring, (for example, I found Lawrence of Arabia fantastic) but this one dragged on way too long. The 4-hour version (yes, there are two versions) could have easily been cut down to 3 hours, but plenty of scenes and dialogue seem like filler to produce a movie of gargantuan size. Cleopatra should have been divided into two three-hour parts, like the studio originally planned, but that was canceled. Now, if the pacing was very good in this movie, I believe it would have been much, much more riveting. Often, there are extremely long scenes of either monologues or conversation. Now, I do not mind talkiness in movies, but what really affects it is the poor pacing. For example, an hour is just conversation, then there is a fifteen minute battle scene, then the next half hour is talk, then there is a twenty minute battle scene, etc. There seemed to be no organized structure, instead, scattered-about scenes.

The script seems very off for a movie though. I love Shakespearean dialogue for a play, but that was for 16th and 17th century English. But because this is a movie, it feels off, especially since it is a biography on the life of Cleopatra, not a play. The script I found overall good, but it has a few extremely overblown moments. For example: A man announces to Octavian that Mark Antony is dead in a cool manner, but here is Octavian's rather over-the-top response:

"Is that how one says it? As simply as that. 'Mark Antony is dead. Lord Antony is dead.' 'The soup is hot; the soup is cold." "Antony is living; Antony is dead." Shake with terror when such words pass your lips, for fear they be untrue and Antony'd cut out your tongue for the lie! And if true, for your lifetime boast that you were honored to speak his name even in death. The dying of such a man, must be shouted, screamed! It must echo back from the corners of the universe. 'Antony is dead! Mark Antony of Rome lives no more!'"

Um... to be honest, it feels really, really theatrical. And because there are several lines like this in the movie, it makes the movie feel somewhat campy. However, this was the only truly cringe-inducing part midst the numerous spots of pretentious monologues. Another problem is the acting. Elizabeth Taylor's performance as Cleopatra feels rather overdone, but not excessively so. The same (sometimes) goes to Richard Burton's performance as Mark Antony. Sometimes, the acting feels more like an intentionally theatrical live Shakespeare performance. I'm not saying that Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton's acting is bad, but it sometimes feels a bit overwrought. However, Rex Harrison's acting as Julius Caesar does redeem some of the cheesy dialogue that he uses. Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton lack chemistry and do not seem to be in a state of passionate romance, however, there is wonderful chemistry between Elizabeth Taylor and Rex Harrison. Why? I think the acting is a large part of it. It is hard to put one's finger on it, but the romance is lacking greatly in passion between Cleopatra and Mark Antony. It is also a disappointment that Rex Harrison's character (Julius Caesar) dies between the first third and first half, and for the rest of the time, it shows mainly Cleopatra and Mark Antony. Rex Harrison's character could have died later on, because so much of the second half seems like filler. I truly believe that Rex Harrison's portrayal is very interesting, and so I was disappointed that he died within the first half of the film.

A very notable feature of the film is the music. Alex North's score greatly enhances the emotion of the film, with a striking Egyptian flavor, mixed in with traditional-style film score. If I were to compare it to another soundtrack, it would probably be Lawrence of Arabia. It may not be as great as Lawrence of Arabia's, but it still is wonderfully striking. Even though it does sound like I am saying the music is the best part of the film, I do think that the visuals are the most notable. I know that I have listed many negative parts about it, but, it truth, I do think that this is a good movie. I believe it's a truly moving, powerful epic. But it is required that you are a patient viewer to enjoy this movie. If you cannot stand talky historical movies like this, you will think of it no more than four painfully boring hours of sappy melodrama, conversation, and monologues. I am a patient viewer, so I was able to appreciate the movie. If you are a history movie buff, then this is for you. But if you are a normal movie viewer, this could very well be a snooze fest. To summarize this movie in a sentence: "Despite its kitsch, and many, many other flaws, this movie is a grand, sweeping, and emotional epic that still is enjoyable." God bless all who read this and bye!

In case you don't know, that was sarcasm. Honestly, I would pay a significant amount of money so that people do not fall into the trap of watching this garbage. Please, please, I beg of you, pleading on my knees, I sincerely ask you: Do not watch this movie! This movie is nothing more than a disgrace to cinema! It's nothing more than a piece of constipated poop ominously dropping off the sides of the toilet seat from the depths of those heinous bowels. It is more painful then having a door wrapped in barbwire shoved up your butt sideways. Childbirth is but pleasant compared the agonizing, torturous, and cringe-inducing 87-minute experience you go through when watch this. The pain is much more extreme than that of when you chug a ton of hot sauce and then have to go to the bathroom later that day, only to find out that you are releasing scorching hot diarrhea out of your anus, which feels no better than pure lava. It is not any better than stepping on a Lego ten times in a row, or being flayed alive, or being tormented by having boiling oil poured all over your skin. Do you understand what I am saying? What you undergo when watching this movie is not pleasant!

This doesn't even qualify for 'so bad it's good'. This was torture. I didn't even crack a smile once. Not even the Matt Damon jokes were funny! How? How could you make a Matt Damon joke not funny?

There are numerous bad movies out there, such as 'Meet the Spartans', 'Epic Movie', and 'Date Movie', but this!? This!? Why was this released? None of the jokes are funny, the acting is garbage, the dialogue is horrendous, and the humor is unnecessarily crude and stupid. After watching this, I couldn't stop vomiting. It's that bad.

Juney, who is supposed to be this quirky pregnant teen, talks like an idiot. She is supposed to exaggerate the style of speech which is common among Gen-Z's, but it's not funny and it's stupid as heck. It's. Not. Funny. At. All.

Do yourself a favor: Do not watch this. Watch something good, like Vertigo, Casablanca, The Godfather, Citizen Kane, or if you would prefer a comedy movie, then you should watch something like 'Some Like It Hot', 'Arsenic and Old Lace', or Doctor Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb'. Those are some good comedy movies. Not this trash. If you want a good reason to stab yourself in the eye with a fork, then watch this. Otherwise, don't.

Casablanca is cinematic perfection in every way conceivable. The dialogue, the plot, the acting, and the music are just a few reasons why Casablanca is a masterpiece. Humphrey Bogart plays Rick Blaine, a cynical bar owner who is in love with a beautiful woman named Ilsa, played by Ingrid Bergman, but the relationship is put in a difficult position when a love triangle forms. Rick separates himself from Ilsa, being reminded of the song Ilsa loved: "As Time goes by".

I don't know even where to start! This movie has everthing! It has action, comedy, romance, war, and drama, all packed finely into one masterpiece that will not be forgotten! The script is fantastic as one can see because of the innumerable quotable lines in the film. The acting is superb as one can tell through the numerous stars in it, for example Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, Claude Rains, Sydney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre. With a cast like that, it is almost certain that there will be fine acting. The music, particularly 'As Time Goes By' is phenomenal.

The movie of course has received critical acclaim. The movie has a 99% Rotten Tomatoes approval rating, and 100% Metascore, all of which I believe are suitable ratings for it. Despite some negativity in the reviews here at IMDb, this is a movie that must be watched at least once in your life. Any film buff, if it has not been seen, must see it. I am one myself, and I thus decided to watch it. It has been one of my favorites ever since. God bless all who read this and bye!

Orson Welles' masterpiece Citizen Kane is considered, according to the American Film Institution, the greatest movie ever made, and for very good reason. This movie is about the life of Charles Foster Kane, and the meaning of his last words: "Rosebud". Citizen Kane is so important because of the technical accomplishments made which were incredibly revolutionary and ahead of their time. The use of lighting is incredible, using dark and heavy shadows during sadder moments, and the opposite for more jovial moments. The use of lighting is extremely effective in the opening scene, using dark shadows covering the bodies to create a mysterious silhouette, with a perfect amount of light around them to make them visible.

What struck me as the greatest technical achievement was the cinematography. Like the German film 'M', which was made ten years earlier, it has certain uses of the camera which where almost never seen before. If one analyzes the cinematography in the opening scene, you will realize that this camerawork was not common for the time, but it is so inventive and original that it is undeniable that it is ingenious, for example, the use of deep focus and, in the beginning, a fish-eye view though broken glass.

Orson Welles plays Charles Foster Kane in an amazing way. In general, all the performances given are great, because of other talented actors such as Joseph Cotten, who was to later play in other movies like 'Shadow of a Doubt', 'The Third Man', which also has Orson Welles in it, and 'Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte'. Even though Joseph Cotten is excellent in this, Orson Welles truly was at his best, even though he was only 25 when he made this film! If you are a film buff, than you must see this, because of its technical accomplishments. For an 80 year-old film, it has not aged a day. Why is this movie an essential in film school? A few reasons are its lighting, cinematography, and character development. This is a must-see for any fan of drama and mystery movies, for any film buff, and any fan of movies. God bless all who read this and bye!

"Immortal Beloved" has a fair share of beautiful scenery and lavish costumes of the early 19th century. Though this is a nice feature about the movie, it falls into many flaws that make this movie very syrupy and rather overblown. Gary Oldman makes a very convincing and passionate (but not overdone) performance of the great Ludwig van Beethoven. While it is listed under the genre biography, it seems very far from that. The story of Beethoven is fictionalized to fault, which proves that this is by no means a reliable source of information about Beethoven (which it clearly is not supposed to be). There also seems to be a strange combination of sugary romance mixed in rather poorly with the dead seriousness of Beethoven.

Another potential fault is that there seems to be a much greater focus on who the "Immortal Beloved" was and his romantic experiences, rather than the important moments of his life which one would think would be the main type of content in this. I understand that the title is "Immortal Beloved" and that that is a very important part of it, but focusing on the sad and furious life of Beethoven poorly matches up with the overly thick and shmaltzy sentimentality when it comes to the romantic side of Beethoven. The movie would have been greatly improved if it were not for the sugary romance.

While I am not a big fan of this movie, I do have to say that it has plenty of beautiful scenery, good acting, and wonderful music from Beethoven. I don't hate this movie, in fact, it is rather fun to watch, but when it boils down to it, it isn't much more than a sappy melodrama. God bless all whoever read this and bye!