crafo-1

I will be brief. I enjoyed 98% of this movie. The acting, art direction, cinematography, script (mostly) are exquisite. I was delighted and amused as well as intrigued and riveted. Most of the movie made sense, but without giving it away, the ending is pure madness, utterly impossible, sick and deranged. I am not charmed by such ludicrous fantasies.

I will come quickly to the point: this is the best movie ever made about an artist. It is miraculous and in a category of its own.

It is long and slow, but it is also true and intense.

No one who cares about the artistic process could possibly go wrong watching this epic masterpiece!

Endless suffering is not entertainment, nor is it enlightening.

I have read various accounts of Christian missionaries in other parts of the world aside form Japan who succeeded very quickly in converting indigenous people to their faith. In the case of Native Americans, many converted by simply being confronted with a written language in the bible.

In Japan in the 17 century, Christianity was resisted with unimaginable cruelty and Scorcese gives us 160 minutes of it. What does it reveal?

It reveals a sickness on both sides of the issue, in my opinion. The sickness of fanaticism and the sickness of narrow minded tribalism.

Ultimately , I found this movie utterly pointless and a waste of time.

I think movies about writers are very difficult to do. Afterall, so much of what it is about cannot be shown on the screen, so what is left to show? Not every writer has a flamboyant life or an interesting personality.

Thomas Wolfe was a bit larger than life and his books are long, long rivers of words, not for everyone's taste but certainly for people interested in writing and in literature.

I did not recognize Jude Law as Wolfe until the very end. I had no idea he was in it. Ironic that Englishmen play the main characters. Why not American actors? Oh well, they did a nice job. I think Law was a tad forced here and there and the southern accent was only so so, but I am still willing to give him some kudos.

I remember the days you could find Thomas Wolfe's novels on the shelf of any decent bookstore. Not so now. Maybe one or two. Maybe. It would be nice if this film turns people's attention back to him (as well as Fitzgerald and Hemingway!)

I don't think it is a great movie, but it is an honorable one.

I am flat out not a sci-fi guy, but this film got to me. I found myself thinking wildly all through it, meditating on all aspects of life from artificial intelligence to existence itself.

We're all familiar with the mad scientist who created a monster or a disobedient robot in general, yet this morphs into a more intimate and suspenseful thriller of a movie. It keeps one guessing and engaged from first to last.

I was delighted, but I must also warn the average viewer that this is no shoot 'em up or computer graphic imagery epic. In some ways, it is almost a play with a small amount of appropriate special effects.

I would recommend it to thoughtful people who don't mind a slow paced, intelligent presentation.

I will come straight to the point. I hated this movie with a passion.

I was lured into the cinema by the 70mm lenses that also shot the great epic BEN HUR. I was expecting wide panoramas and beautiful vistas but Tarantino is done with them within a few minutes at the very beginning and then he sticks a bunch of wisecracking sadists in a one room cabin for the remaining 95% of the film.

What, then, is the damn point of using 70mm?

After listening to endless reels of nonstop clever "dialogue", the blood bath finally ensues. It is so drenched in sadistic blood as to become a parody of itself, a farce, a meaningless masturbatory pile of sick nonsense.

Although it takes place in 19th century Wyoming, all the actors have the whitest most perfect teeth on earth.

I won't bother criticizing the actors who do their best under the circumstances, I will say Samuel L. Jackson has become tiresome repeating his same pose from PULP FICTION as he does in those Capital One commercials. Yawn.

Bruce Dern appears in it and he always has been one of my favorite actors since I was a college boy. I wish he had won the academy award for NEBRASKA that he deserved.

I, for one, am utterly fed up and sick of the gun culture and the relentless display of violence in all aspects of American life. Tarantino strikes me as an angry nerd who never matured. This movie has nothing to say. It is all sensation, shock and shameless self- indulgence.

I loved this movie and found it thrilling. Only a few days ago did I begin to read Salinger's short stories again as well as RAISE HIGH THE ROOFBEAMS, CARPENTERS. Of course everyone has read THE CATCHER IN THE RYE and I agree it remains a right of passage.

I came to this movie with high hopes and that always scares me, because I set myself up for a downfall. This came through for me.

It is an intense psychological portrait. The 299 days he spent at continuous war, from D-Day to the concentration camps, most certainly carved out his soul to his dying day. And how could it not? As someone who has always been interested in platonic love, I was very moved by his friendship(s) with young women that did not include sex.

This movie thoroughly investigates the ego, drive, and mystery of this artist. The portrait is not always flattering and sometimes it is downright pitiful, but it seems genuine to me.

I would recommend it to not only fans but also any writer or artist who knows something about the thrill of achievement and the horror of fame.

I look forward to the publication of the posthumous work with relish.

Have to admit I am rarely THIS disappointed in a movie featuring Johnny Depp (and he was Executive Producer too)! I won't waste time going into details. This is truly one of the most ridiculous "summer" movies of all time. The ending sequence must've cost 100 million dollars all by itself. It is more over the top than I care to express. Pure unadulterated NONSENSE.

Johnny Depp has wrecked DARK SHADOWS and now THE LONE RANGER.

He should be ashamed of himself.

Be warned: this movie is a COMEDY and a bad one. The Lone Ranger is portrayed as something of a jerk or a buffoon while the hideousness of Tonto's appearance is difficult to endure.

Perhaps I am simply too OLD for summer movies, but I had the notion to RUN out of the theater within the first 10 full minutes.

This movie sucked. And the millions wasted is something akin to a crime.

I am not entirely sure what the title means, although I tend to think it has something to do with Anne Bancroft's character who remains continually pregnant, despite evidence of multi-infidelities by her husband, Peter Finch.

This film came out the same year I was a junior in high school and would have been far too subtle and sophisticated for me then. I am glad I saw it now.

I have always been a fan of Harold Pinter's writing and this adaptation from a novel is brilliant.

The black and white photography is exquisite!

Anne Bancroft gives a masterpiece of a forlorn performance and is joined wonderfully by James Mason and Maggie Smith as well as Peter Finch.

The pace is slow and deliberate. The nuances are not for the crash and burn crowd. This is serious adult entertainment.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

LAST TANGO IN Paris is one of my all time favorite films.

I saw it originally in NYC after waiting three days for tickets to get in. Brando was in the midst of an enormous comeback after THE GODFATHER's success.

The hype was intense.

Since then I have seen the movie many times and now own it on DVD. When I was an acting student with the legendary Stella Adler I performed Paul's monologue to his dead wife in her scene study class. Ms. Adler, who had essentially discovered Marlon Brando, had not seen the movie and was nervous about its content and vulgarity, but she wept during the monologue and I knew I struck a note.

Few movies in my life time have had such an emotional impact. When I first saw it I so related to Paul's desolation and nihilism but as time went on I could also feel empathy and obtain understanding with his counterpart--Jeanne. I thought Maria Schneider was amazing as a foil to Brando. There are not many actresses who could have pulled it off half as well as she did.

Greatness often includes tragedy and tragedy must always include death. This movie is sometimes an ode to sexual abandon but it also is a memo to death--both suicide and murder.

The haunting jazzy soundtrack and improvised flavor give this film a realistic touch. We believe it from first to last. Jeanne is swept away into an affair with a broken middle aged man and just as she revives him, she rejects him.

I love the photography too with its brown/yellow tones and shadows. Sometimes it is creepy and repulsive and sometimes it is silly and fun.

Over the years, I think it holds up and is worth a multitude of viewings. This is one that will stay with you for a long time. It's not for the car chase and explosion crowd. This chase is an internal explosion that reverberates through and through.

See it, by all means.

I am stunned this movie made money. Call me old, call me a grump, but this film was an abomination compared to the second one with the late great Heath Ledger as The Joker.

The first 45 minutes or so are utterly incoherent. I had no clue who was who or what was what.

The villain, Bane, is useless wearing a "mask" and using almost the identical voice as Batman. When they are speaking together in the same scene, I hardly knew which character was speaking.

The one pleasant surprise was Anne Hathaway who did a fine job. Didn't think she had it in her! Perhaps the super hero genre leaves me in the dust. This wasted my time.

I have to confess right off the bat that I love O'Neill and this play is certainly one of the grandest of them all, but I am also one of those that would have preferred to see Jason Robards in the Hickey role. I did see Robards play it on kine scope and thought he was about as right as it gets.

Having said that, Lee Marvin does admirably in this huge role. My expectation were low but I was not disappointed. I even thought he brought a level of menace to the part that might have been missing with another actor.

It is a grim play. Nothing cute about this bunch of burn outs and hardcore drunks. Not easy to view and experience and very long! (I watched it in 3, count them, 3 sittings! Special praise goes to Robert Ryan, in one of his best roles ever and a very young and vibrant Jeff Bridges who comes through against a long array of seasoned performers.

I do not think I have ever heard the word "pipedream" more. It occurs again and again and with purpose and sadness.

Although this work has a half a ton of drunks and losers, it is not for the partying JERSEY SHORE crowd. This is highbrow epic stuff.

Bravo!!

I agree with a previous review that this version of THE CHERRY ORCHARD doesn't happen until halfway through. Then, the curtain comes up, the story and the characters gel, the ideas kick in and the play is revealed.

This is one of the only performances of Alan Bates that I didn't care for. It seemed silly and forced.

Charlotte Rampling is rather perfect, however.

I love Chekhov but I expect to be disappointed. I've seen performances on stage and on the screen that horrified all my sensibilities to the depth of my soul. I've seen plenty of train wrecks. This starts off very badly with a prologue that is utterly unnecessary and not very interesting. Scenes are presented in different order and seem to be jumbled up in a unauthentic attempt at cinema.

The beginning just doesn't work.

But, if you're patient, the second half does have many moments that are satisfying and resonate deeply. We see many of Chekhov's themes of loss, unrequited love, the ennui of modern life, etc. The acting seems more focused and the pay off pretty good by the end.

I recommend it with serious reservations in mind.

I am a huge Chekhov fan. I became one during Scene Study class with the legendary acting teacher Stella Adler, who was the only American teacher who actually studied with the creator of "the method"--Stanislavski.

I was watching a couple of wonderful actors find their way through a scene from Chekhov's play UNCLE VANYA when I had a kind of epiphany. I saw at last Chekhov's humanity, his breathtakingly beautiful, comic and pathetic view of the human struggle: full of irreconcilable differences, unrequited love and sad loveliness.

In the meanwhile, I have seen many productions of his plays both on stage and in the cinema. Sadly Chekhov is often done wrong. His plays tend to read more darkly on the page than they ought to be played. Remember, he insisted they were comedies despite tragic elements including suicide.

This beautiful version of THE DUEL is easily one of the finest interpretations of Chekhov's work that I have ever seen. I imagine all of ten or twenty people even know it exists! What a shame! Because it deserves an audience.

Although it is based on a long story (or novella)and not one of Chekhov's wonderful plays, it contains all the elements that touch me so deeply. I was delighted from the opening sequences to the final shot. The actors, one and all, were marvelous and the photography just spectacular.

It is mature and rich, full of humor, sadness, drama, sex, love and redemption. Please track it down and check it out. I just watched it for the third time.

No, thanks. I had big problems with this movie.

If you want to see endless shots of Tilda Swinton wandering around like a glassy-eyed zombie, you're in for big thrills.

I was intrigued by the basic theme of a child who shows signs of being a sociopath, but it has virtually no discussions whatsoever of its parents trying to figure out what is happening. Instead, we watch them make love as if things are normal.

The film has a certain technical expertise. The non-linear storyline is a challenge, however. Thirty minutes in, I had had quite enough, but I stayed with it.

We get the sense that a massive atrocity has been committed, but we don't find out what it is, of course, until the very end. I blame Robin Hood and I blame two parents who do not seem to have a clue about disciplining a wicked child. Their passiveness in the face of grotesque behavior upset me (and my wife) as much as the antics of the little monster they spawned.

The use of music was really weird, especially Buddy Holly's "Everyday" that makes not the slightest bit of sense.

I cannot recommend this movie. I think the average viewer will be bored witless and probably will not make it to the finale.

BLACKBOARD JUNGLE holds an entirely unique place in my cinema experience. I was all of seven years old when I walked to the local movie theater in my Rhode Island suburban neighborhood and laid out the grand total of 20 cents to see it.

It was the first movie that I ever watched alone, and it is the first major Hollywood movie to use a rock 'n roll song for the credit roll. (Rock Around the Clock by Billy Haley and the Comets)

The black and white look gave it a gritty, even scary feel to my very young impressionable mind. I knew that Glen Ford was in an awful situation dealing with these inner city punks and that Vic Morrow was the worst of the lot. I gotta admit he was just a little cool to me as well, especially when he put his switchblade into his desk top.

Despite being released in 1955, BLACKBOARD JUNGLE is not quite as dated as one may believe. Many of the issues within are as current as modern times. It remains a gripping drama.

Anne Francis is the gorgeous, frightened wife, and Sidney Poitier gives a terrific performance as the guy Glen Ford must win over to gain control of his class.

I wouldn't hesitate to check this out again.

I saw this movie a half a dozen times when it first appeared because my brother worked at a movie theater in Manhattan where it played.

It is one of those films that feels like a 600 page novel, although it's running time is only 93 minutes.

I see it as almost biblical. A profound story of hope and greed, love, lust and criss-crossed human intentions that ends in abject tragedy.

Terrence Malick is an artist of epic size, in my opinion. His films do not always resonate with the Average Joe. I even understand through the proverbial grapevine that some of the actors felt used and manipulated and had huge portions of their performances on the cutting room floor. Sometimes only a sliver of a scene remains but a scene that reverberates for a long time.

On a personal note: I met Brooke Adams at a party once and got to tell her how much I adored this film and I also met then 14 year old Linda Manz who also narrates the movie--sometimes hilariously.

The photography is stunning. The scene where the locusts descend is one for the ages.

I recommend this film without reservation for those that can appreciate cinema on the highest end of Art...yes...with a capital A.

I confess to being a bit fascinating by this young woman named Ellen Page as an actress. I thought she was every bit frightening and riveting in HARD CANDY, for example, and I find her compelling on talk shows and even in commercials.

But this movie made my blood curdle.

The ultra-clever dialog, especially by Juno, seemed somehow unnatural. The more I heard it, the more cold blooded and almost evil she became to me.

I detected a certain selfishness that simply turned me off.

Not that the film is not entertaining. It is.

But the grotesque manipulation of it kept me ill at ease; therefore, not entirely permitting me to "enjoy" it.

I can clearly see how many people dig it and are charmed. It obviously has some "magic". Yet, ultimately I found myself resisting it.

I was aware going into this that TREE OF LIFE put some people to sleep and forced others to leave the theatre way ahead of time. Yet, I have seen Malick's other films and have always been a raving fan, so a big part of me did not believe or accept the negativity.

I'll take it a step further: the vicious negative "reviews" make me wince. I don't expect everyone to agree or for everyone to recognize "greatness", but I would think serious film buffs would recognize an epic reaching, a monumental effort to plunge bravely into the abyss.

This is flat out, hands down one of most spectacularly beautiful movies I have ever seen in my lifetime, and I am no spring chicken.

It is an epic cinematic poem to the mystery of life. I am in awe at the effort here. I kneel in awe.

In my opinion, this film is a cinematic equivalent to Milton's PARADISE LOST or Dante's INFERNO. It is a non-linear, inventive, original journey.

Certainly not for everyone. It breaks plenty of rules. There is no real plot. There is no climax. It is more of a Proustian memory piece, but that is all right with me.

I have never seen anything even remotely like it. Check out other reviews if you want to know what it is "about." The truth is: it cannot be summarized. Period.

I think it is touched with Greatness!

I was traveling cross country via Greyhound in 1971 when I had some time to kill in Denver and saw this movie. I think I had a fever at the time, but I sat there mesmerized.

I grew up in a white bread suburban neighborhood and had precious little knowledge of the black experience. This movie cracks whitey over the head--literally and figuratively. For me, it was an eye opener and the wild editing and psychedelic nightmare rhythm of it was fun.

For such a low budget film, I found it innovative, although now people may see it as indulgent and sloppy.

It still maintains an integrity and a legitimate anger.

The sexuality is raw. The violence, rough stuff for the time.

I saw it again recently and enjoyed it with certain allowances of style. It is uneven and exasperating, but it also has a soul and courage.

Calling it the first blaxploitation film works for me. Classic stuff.

This movie reeks.

It is a stinker.

It fails.

As someone who found his way to "literature" through "the beats", this movie really let me down. It felt more like Beavis & Butthead.

I did not believe a single scene or a single syllable of it. I know I am being harsh, but if you are going to play beatnik icons, then you better do it right and you better know what you are doing.

I will say this, in order to be positive, they tried. All of them. Everyone involved gives it a shot, but it lacks authenticity. It is tough reaching for the impossible. It is hard to combine awesome poetry with massive drug use. Few actors could pull it off and these simply don't. Everything falls flat. All of it. One missed opportunity after another! There was a glory to their story and there was a sadness too. There is inspiration and depression, muses and despair, but this film floats somewhere in limbo not going anywhere.

I wanted to like it. I watched it hoping it would be what it just isn't.

I painfully await the movie version of ON THE ROAD. And beg the gods for mercy!

I confess right off the bat that I am not a fan of Ayn Rand. I think she was something of a sociopath and fanatic. This movie underscores all my worst fears and suspicions. Nevertheless, I had a morbid curiosity to see this movie, despite all the negative expectations. Ayn Rand seems to be enjoying a bit of a resurgence and I knew I would never tackle the book, so the movie seemed an appropriate lesser of two evils.

But, pitting ultra-ambitious business moguls against "the needy" is a strange set up to begin with. We are already witnessing in our day the business rage against "government" as a symbol of collectivism/socialism. I do not think "business" has to be anti-needy. But wealth for wealth's sake seems empty to me and the presentation of the moguls in this movie reveals soulless zombies in expensive suits and dresses!

Extreme individualism is as dangerous as extreme communism, in my opinion. We do not live alone. We live in society, not as hermits.

ATLAS SHRUGGED has the look of a TV movie; therefore, it is stale, flat and boring. The ice queen blonde in the lead (why embarrass her by mentioning her name?) has less appeal than dirty snow.

Success is filled with dull jewelry, wine and champagne. Hey, poor people can afford that! Plus, our cold blonde finds time to bed down a married man, because, hey, he is as cold and ruthless as she is and the cold and ruthless have to have fun too.

This movie is awful. Difficult to summarize as the novel is difficult to read, even by Ayn Rand sympathizers.

I find it curious that the right-wing religious types seem to be enchanted with Ayn Rand who was a staunch atheist and did not believe in any kind of charity, including the religious kind.

Spare yourself. Do not waste a moment on this drivel.