jayzeefilms

In my opinion, this has got to be the best, if not one of the best, adaptations of one my favorite stories that I liked since I was a little kid. The first time I've seen Hanna-Barbera's 1967 TV movie "Jack And The Beanstalk" was when I was in 1st grade, I think, but I'm not sure. And after over 10 years, I re-watched it online and liked it even more because much of the dialogue and actions were not understood by me as a 7 year old because I wasn't paying attention to it very well. I knew who Gene Kelly was, the actor who portrayed Jeremy Keen the bean seller in the film, even when I was 7, as well as Hanna-Barbera because they created The Flintstones, The Jetsons, Scooby-Doo and so forth. Over 20 years earlier, he "danced" with Jerry the mouse in 1945's "Anchors Aweigh". Bobby Riha does a fine job playing Jack, even though he may resemble other then-child actors during the era like Bill Mumy and Ron Howard. The songs are brilliant, the animation is exceptional for Hanna-Barbera's television production standards, the acting and voice acting was fairly realistic, the special effects were good, but when you watch closely, you can barely see the equipment, such as gym pads, props, harnesses, etc., in the shots, that kind of ruin the effect. But keep in the mind, this was the late 60s/early 70s, since technology was not as sophisticated as it is today, but nonetheless was it groundbreaking since this was Hanna-Barbera's first live- action/animation production for television. The film also includes wonderful choices for the cartoon characters. Ted Cassidy, known by most as Lurch from "The Addams Family", as the wicked but funny giant who looks kind of like a cross between Fred Flintstone and Bluto from Popeye, as I thought when I saw this flick for the first time ever. Janet Waldo, known mainly as Judy Jetson and Cindy Bear, was the speaking voice of Princess Serina, the harp and Jack's mother, who was portrayed by 1957's Miss America Marian McKnight. Princess Serina's singing voice was provided by Marni Nixon. Not to mention that on the day I post this, February 26, 2017, would mark "Jack and the Beanstalk"'s 50th anniversary of when it was first aired on television. I still really like this movie, even though it's primary audience is children, but that's OK. If you ask me, this movie isn't just for little kids, I think it's something that even childless adults would like, such as myself. Good movie, I recommend it to anyone who wants to see it.

I'm surprised that no one has ever reviewed this movie yet, so I thought about writing one myself. This documentary discusses about the harsh reality regarding child prostitution in Cambodia. You should know that not only is child prostitution an issue in Cambodia, it is also an issue around many countries in the world. Current and former child prostitutes, mainly female, are interviewed. The language spoken in this film, except for the narration by Lucy Liu, is Khmer which is accompanied by subtitles specifically for English-language viewers, such as the United States. It might be too upsetting for some people to watch, especially when regarding the violent treatment as described by the victims of child prostitution, who are of course interviewed. Also, according to the interviewees, there were brothel owners who were threatening the parents of the children to keep the child as their property, which is a form of slavery. Slavery and child prostitution is wrong and must be put to an end somehow. I feel bad for those poor children and their relatives.

I'm surprised that no has ever posted a negative review for this movie, I'm also shocked by the unanimous praise on this site, so I decided to do one myself, even though a film that has reached such a magnitude of acclaim cannot take a bad opinion very lightly. I know, I know, I'm probably gonna get bashed for hating this movie, since there might be someone who will call me a stone-hearted American who doesn't care about Brazil's youth, but I do care about Brazil and its youth. By the way, I hate political correctness. It seems like if you hate certain movies, particularly because of their subject matter, you will be viewed as someone who has a bad taste in movies or just shallow and thick. I for one think it's contradictory for someone to say that they didn't like it yet call it a good movie. I call that a bunch of bull. For me, if I hate the movie, then it's a bad movie, common sense logic. It doesn't matter if it has the so- called "good script, good cinematography, good acting" and so on. Pixote is a stupid/bad/overrated, oh, that's right, I'm not allowed to criticize because that would make me an evil monster. In a nutshell, a little boy, about 9 to 12 years old, gets put into an orphanage and meets two boys older than him, about 16 to 20, and engage in harsh crimes, involving drugs, violence, rape and all the terrible stuff. I find it sick that someone praises such filth calling it beautiful when I call it sick rubbish. It's exploitation of youth, pure and simple, although certainly not intended to be since it's only trying to show an unfortunate reality happening, but it subconsciously promotes bad behavior. It kind of reminds me of the those 70s and early 80s exploitica films like "The Cannibal Holocaust", which is supposedly real. There's a reason why I'm giving this movie a negative review, because I don't like, and think there should be more room for criticism as opposed to praise. Don't watch it! See something more enjoyable. Throw those bad movies away. And another thing... Does it make it inherently wrong for me to hate "Pixote"? Am I really a mean- spirited person because I am giving this movie a very bad review? Am I the only one who doesn't like this movie? Should I shy away from expressing my emotions/thoughts toward this movie? I really don't mean to be cruel towards the street kids who suffered in real life, I just don't think that making a supposedly "documentary" film is a good idea. Besides, it's NOT a documentary, only partially, it's relatively more fiction/narrative since it follows principles similar to that of Hollywood in America. I don't mean any disrespect to the "actor" who portrayed the lead character in this film. I feel bad that he was killed by the police when he was as young as 19. Interestingly, it's been said that majority of the "actors" were not actually actors, sounds kind of paradoxical, I know, but it was meant to add more "realism". But I don't take too kindly to that kind of film-making, it doesn't seem to work, at least to me. If they are going to make this movie, it shouldn't be fiction/narrative, or in "Pixote"'s case being semi-fiction, it should be truly non-fiction/documentary. Meaning that there should be elements, such as interviews with the street kids, the police, and other people in Brazil, have the director narrate . This is ONLY MY OPINION, nothing more. And if you disagree, then just ignore it, it's not gonna stop me from having the dissenting opinion. I apologize for making people get so damn angry at me. But PLEASE don't hate me too much! I'm just giving an opinion about a FREAKING movie for God's sake!

"Starhops" is a comedy movie about a trio of pretty young women which would be Angel and Cupcake, a blonde and a redhead, and Danielle, a French lady who became a friend and cook for Angel and Cupcake's new fast-food drive-in restaurant which was almost abandoned by Jerry, who quit after working for so long as the manager. The female trio must keep the business rolling before the wicked boss of an oil company, Carter Axe, destroys the restaurant. His son Norman, who is not-so-mean, befriends with Angel, Cupcake and Danielle. Another guy, named Kong, barges into the restaurant to steal food, but is later in love with Danielle, and joins the merry group. Good story, awesome characters, funny moments, catchy theme song, and satisfactory photography. Love the crummy 16mm print of the movie, since it is an exploitation movie. The only problems with the movie is that there were scenes that might be too long, slow-paced, or unnecessary, and strange placements of music. Sure, the production quality is obviously poor, but that's what makes it likable, it's still a fine film. I would recommend it. It's so underrated! Not only should people know about "Starhops", but they should enjoy it as well. There needs to be a fan-base/cult following. I'm one of the very few people who actually praises this flick.

This television cartoon is one of my favorite animated sitcoms along with other TV cartoons such as Family Guy, South Park, American Dad and King Of The Hill. I for one really like this show, along with Family Guy in which I have already mentioned. There seems to be both funny moments as well as serious moments, even though about 75% of the show is comedy, and it's also realistic (more so than Family Guy), although sometimes it gets a little too surreal when something implausible happens, but the surreal moments usually have an explanation as well as being hallucinations or dreams (the only truly surreal episodes are the Halloween specials, alias Treehouse Of Horror). As much as I like the TV show for its stupidity (which is essential in comedy, in a good way of course), one of the things that bothers me about the show, or shall I say the whole franchise, is that there seems to be a significant, although certainly not universal, perception that it's a "family" show, and that is not true at all, and also there are people who think that TV shows like Family Guy and South Park are more mature than it. Bull-crap! In any case, The Simpsons is no less mature than Family Guy nor South Park. In fact, the primary creator Matt Groening originally never intended The Simpsons to be for "family viewing". Though surely there were kids who watched it with their parents in, let's say 1990, but it wasn't meant for that audience. The Simpsons was originally a group of 1 1/2 minute shorts on The Tracey Ullman Show and it was almost like South Park for its crude artwork. Then finally, The Simpsons became its very own sitcom since 1989. The series was the South Park and Family Guy of its time, also predating the shows on the late-night Cartoon Network line-up Adult Swim. Personally, I wish The Simpsons were on Adult Swim. But anyways, I also want to say that I regret watching this show as a child (I was 12 at the time), but in retrospect it was the wrong age for me to watch the show or associate with the entire franchise. I even encouraged a 3- year-old to watch the show, how stupid I was back then! Besides, if it really were "family- friendly" or as I prefer the term "kid or child-friendly", it needs to have no bad language, bloody violence, sex, nudity, tobacco, alcohol, controversial topics and very crude humor. I for one personally think that The Simpsons, and also Family Guy, should not be viewed by anyone under 13 or 14 year old, but to be "legal" I would say not for viewers under 17. I Love The Simpsons.

Oh my god! What the hell is this crap? It's not funny, it's not memorable, it's just plain terrible and forgettable! I really like Eve Arden, but why, oh why did she have to star in such a horrible sitcom, she's not even funny! Neither of the actors were funny, memorable or likable, least of all Kaye Ballard, who looks like a Caucasian Ms. Swan! This is perhaps one of the worst and least famous television shows of the late 60s, early 70s! But luckily Richard Deacon, who was an awesome actor, saved the show when replacing the dude who looked like a fricken walrus in the second and thankfully last season! "I Love Lucy" is WAY better and A LOT more famous than this unlaughable obscure sitcom! I'm appalled that Desi Arnaz had to produce such as a terrible show! Ricky Ricardo, I am very disappointed in you. Desi Arnaz was cool but why did have to make such a bad show like "The Mothers-In-Law"? The dialogue is simple, the jokes are very hard to laugh at, the cast is horrible, and the theme song is also horrible and not-so-well known! I actually borrowed this from my mom when I first watched a few episodes from the DVD set to see if it's any good until...I hated it! I was like "What the hell was I watching?" If anything else, I think people should watch something like "The Lucy Show", which is one of my favorite shows, rather than this crap! Trust me, "The Mothers-In-Law" is not a show you wanna watch, it might make you feel strange!

This is a really good movie, considering it's a cartoon. Good animation, story, characters (my favorite character is Merlin), songs, music, art and dialogue. There were times when I felt sad, but the movie was mostly of a comedic and fantasy medium. I also like the way it's drawn and created, it's very much a late 50s/early 60s production, which it is in fact December of 1963 upon its release date in the United States. It's hard to believe it took 3 years to make the movie. Though it was conceived in as early as ca. 1949. A great movie for ages (in my opinion) 7 to 107. I recommend this movie to people who like cartoons, fantasies, comedies, musicals, dramas, and kid-friendly movies. It may not be the most historically accurate movie in the world, it still rocks nonetheless. Charming entertainment for little kids and adults alike.

I happen to be a huge fan of this movie! "Alice in Wonderland" is, in my opinion, one of Disney's best cartoons ever produced, as far as the animated features go. I do not enjoy it because of nostalgia, hell no! I like it because it has a good story, cool characters, nice art and animation, lavishing music, marvelous dialogue and voice acting by the actors, and of course, being based on one of my favorite stories. Sadly, this movie, as well as other Disney-related media, have been relegated to a children's marketing. And people need to stop being so ignorant in saying "Disney is so childish!" Bullcrap, Disney is not exclusively for children! Besides, kids don't make them, for the most part. Adults direct, write, produce, animate, compose music for, and record voices for all of Disney's beloved cartoons. In my opinion, children under 6 years old should not watch Disney movies, shorts, and television shows. Disturbingly, children are watching such material at such a younger and younger age these days, I mean children as young as 18 months! This should also count for Mother Goose poems, fairy tales and other fantasy fiction that should not be be viewed or heard from anyone under 6 years of age. Even though, I admit that I've watched Disney movies as young as age 3, but I didn't pay to much attention to it anyway. Anyway, that is all I want to say! I just love "Alice In Wonderland (1951)!"

This movie (TV special/episode) was just awful, I mean the "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse" TV show was very disappointing. Why would anyone make this kiddie program? It's ruining Mickey Mouse and the other legendary cartoon characters! Walt Disney and Lewis Carroll are probably rolling in their graves right now. Even though, it's not the show itself I'm angry about, the show butchered on one of Disney's wonderful cartoons, Carroll's beloved book, and one of my favorite franchises in general! I know this is meant to be a baby show, but still...it's not right to just dumb down such a good story. That's like ruining "A Christmas Carol" or "Moby Dick" which may have been already ruined by kiddie shows. I say certain kiddie shows should leave "Alice in Wonderland" alone. I can't believe Disney would butcher its own work. Rather ironic, I must say. Don't watch it!

This movie is pretty good! It has really funny jokes, good story, cool characters, (my favorite character is Eep because she is so realistic), marvelous cinematography, animation and so on! All I can say is this film is hilarious and charming! I don't think this movie is appropriate for children under 7 because it's a pretty strong story that the kiddies won't understand. I hate it when they make such movies into a children's medium (which I find insulting and annoying). Another thing I like about this movie is that the wonderful Cloris Leachman takes a stand to play the Grandma "Gran!" Nicolas Cage+Grug=stupid funny (in a good way)! The only character I find annoying is the baby girl Sandy, she is too hideous! One thing that I disliked about the movie was the story was a bit too long to tell. But for the most part I think that this is a good movie!

I hate it when people have to put down such a good movie, thinking it sucks! Well, it's not at all a bad movie! It has really good story, fine dialogue, cool characters, and stunning cinematography. However, the shark did act a little flimsy on screen, it looks like broken robot. And there are mistakes if you watch closely. And sharks don't roar, but it was the director's choice to make the shark roar, to emphasize its monstrosity. I thought the actors who play the characters are really good at acting and make the movie worth being seriously taken. So I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes sequels, rather than those Jaws fanboys. But I hope people enjoy this film!

This wonderful feature-length adaptation of the stupidly funny Stooges includes colorful visuals, hilarious humor, and is quite kid-friendly! In this film, Moe, Larry, and Curly grew up in an Christian orphanage, but then the orphanage has to be demolished. They wouldn't tolerate it, so they go off on a journey to make some money to save their home. Great movie! Full of good laughs, endearing joy, and a heart of innocent stupidity from the Stooges! I also think that the actors who played the comedic trio did a really authentic job of portraying them. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD! It'll be awesome to watch at home! I give this an 8 out of 10 score! Again, great movie!

The 1939 film "Gone With The Wind" is a piece of overrated garbage! It includes ridiculous acting, a confusing plot, much like "A Knight's Tale" from 2001, and a cast of stupid characters! Scarlett O'Hara (played by Vivien Liegh) is a spoiled Southern Belle, Rhett Butler (played by Clark Gable) is a run-of-the-mill cad/ass-clown, and Prissy (played by Butterly McQueen) is an annoying maid/slave. It might have vivid and fancy cinematography, but that won't fly, the story is pathetic and a basic Civil War soap opera! I hated it so much that I made a defamatory YouTube Poop of it! although, I've only seen the first part of the movie, but then I got bored and fed up by this crap! The movie is campy like an Ed Wood film! Do not see this movie ever, it's an awful disaster-piece!

I never liked this movie! I know they had to make a movie for the sake of pop culture but why? The movie has three offensive elements which are when Marge says "Will somebody just throw the god#### bomb!", Homer flips an angry mob off with both hands, and Bart exposes his genitalia. The movie is so juvenile in writing (a naughty 7 year old could've wrote this) and it's a waste of the Simpsons writers' ideas. The art and animation is stunning though. This movie has lame jokes and a forgettable score. The Simpsons Movie is really not for kids, but it is not for adults neither. I hope immature kids enjoy this crap. If you are a true Simpsons fan, save your money for Simpsons merchandise besides this garbage created by douche bags.

This is one of the worst movies ever made! A blond, a fat ass, a rad head, and a scrawny nudist go off on a journey to seek the whore-ish princess (played by the ill-favored Shamylan, poor acting newcomer.) This movie has a lot of genre swings, comedy, drama, romance, comedy, drama, romance. a movie solely for stupid middle school and high school students. Sylvia and Heath act so over-that-top like play actors. Please save your money for Heath's exceptionally good performance as Jacob Grimm from the Brothers' Grimm. I hope that Sylvia Shammylan wins a Golden raspberry award. PPPPPBBBBFFFTTT! Nobody should see this garbage!

This stink-bomb directed by Robert Mulligan starred the cool, but boring Gregory Peck. He spoke like a droning English asshole. The dorky Atticus had a simple minded daughter named Scout and a dopey son named Jem. Atticus had to defend a misunderstood black man who was a accused of raping a psycho white woman. Peck won a Golden Globe award for Best Actor of 1962, my ass. He should've won a Golden Raspberry Award for worst actor of that year and for that trashy movie. Robert Duvall mad his debut as the mute Boo Radley. I was disappointed. Robert Duvall is kind of interesting, even though he had to play in the stupid Godfather movie. Don't buy this crap.