I'm not even sure why this was made or why they made it the way that they did, because it seems more of a propaganda piece that it does anything else. It is a difficult documentary to follow, much less watch. It would have been better if they made it in the traditional sense, but I believe it might have been the producers and director who were not attempting to please society with love and kisses. Instead the opted to throw a bag of burning poop at the viewer.
This documentary covers many aspects of the bombing. They cover the healing of those who survived. They speak briefly about those who died, in fact, they covered those who died in the trial of the remaining terrorist. They cover the timeline which includes the planting of the bombs. They cover the reasons why or at least touch on why the terrorists became terrorists.
I think the most important part is the trial. It is a good review of both sides of the coin, it has some who those who lost a loved one and were injured, asking for the death penalty to be removed, the others who were injured who wanted the death penalty. One of the injured asks, "What can we do to make this not happen again? What do we learn from this?"
It was a tearful documentary, several times.
In memory of - Krystle Campbell, Sean Collier, Lingzi Lu and Martin Richards who lost their lives that dreadful day.
Jasper Mall is an example of what a dying mall is like in America. They have become a place for the elderly to come and do their walking because it is protected from the elements, it has AC, it is safe, it has music, it has stairs and in some cases they put in checkers, chess or domino tables. Most of the anchor stores are going away leaving voids along with massive parking lots that used to be filled.
I grew up in the 80's, before Amazon destroyed the Malls of America. The Mall in my area, there were three of them, were all built in the mid- to late- 70's. It was everything you needed in one location, including Sears which used to have an automotive shop, and a multiplex theater, food court, a video arcade. And tons of bench seats where all the kids would hang out. It was really a big deal to go to the mall on a Friday or Saturday night. We would catch a movie, get some food and then maybe hit the arcade.
I think James Gunn did a good job of bringing stupidity and comic relief to a non superhero action series. The casting of John Cena is a good one because he can play that stupid type of character with some muscle. The rest of the cast is a good job. Low end special effects and 80s rock and roll fills it out.
Just watched the third episode and I couldn't stand the dialog or acting. It was terrible, for this I knocked off three stars.
This movie is the Who's Who of the 80's. Demi Moore, Judd Nelson, Rob Lowe, Mare Winningham, Emilo Estevez, Andrew McCarthy, Ally Sheedy, Andie MacDowell. It also has a sound track with John Parr and David Foster (Man in Motion/St. Elmo's Fire), Love Theme/For Just A Moment/St. Elmo's Fire, Billy Squier (Shake Down), (If I Turn You Away) David Foster and Richard Marx, Otis Redding (Respect).
The movie is about 20 somethings who had graduated from college and are starting to make a life for their own. They all have their backgrounds of wealth, poor, conceited, protected, political or socialite. The movie is the epitome of the 80's. Seriously. If you could find another movie which rates this high let me know. The guys where wearing blue jeans with Oxford button down shirts and a casual jacket which was either tweed or wool. The women had big hair, dresses down to the past the knees, scarfs, wraps and everyone seemed to have dark designer sunglasses. And don't forget the pastel colors and post modern studio apartments, Absolute vodka and smoking heavily.
The movie is actually well written and directed. I think this is one of the better movies to come out of the 80's. It covers that period of life after the teenager has died and they are trying to become like their parents. Some of them fall right in to place and fit well in to that home life, but others are still drunks or jerks who mistreat others including their friends.
Many people will reject this movie for all those things. Many people find the 80's obsessive and materialistic. They are correct. That period from 1982 through 1987 was extremely about being over the top, flashy and popular. This movie has all that in Spades.
This is a terrible movie. One that I would give negative points to because it is such a low budget, worthless movie. In 1984 Tanya Roberts was at the peak of her success after her stint on Charlies Angels, even though she was a replacement. The movie scripts for her where thin and she did better with some television shows or movies. This was one of her last movies which drew any attention because it had a 14 year old version of her which was topless and also she got naked in it as a adult. Big deal. You can find nude pictures of her all over the Internet. It is far better to Google those pictures than to have to sit through this tripe.
You need to bite the bullet to watch this one, because the Amish are a boring group of people to not film. There are a few of them included in this but at a distance. There are a few ex-Amish who are interviewed directly.
The somber music is sometimes hard to listen to, but it fits. It made me a bit depressed while listening to it.
The Amish are a closed system. They say it is because if you don't have rules you can't be obedient. However, the closed system is there because it is an issue of control, you have to be obedient to the white, male, religious leaders. It is a system of dominance. It is a system of abuse.
I liked the movie and it was entertaining, but it is based on one white man's views. This movie is 95% made from Capt. Robert Shaw's writings. That's not to say that this isn't an accurate movie about the time, but it would have been a far greater movie to base it off the black man's point of view. In that sense I find the title of the movie, "Glory", just an advertising gimmick to make the viewer feel different. And keep in mind, they only took a few of thing thinks for Capt. Shaw's writings. There was a LOT of creative license used in the movie. They kept only the things which help make a profitable movie. And that's really what Hollowood is about when it comes to movies, profit.
I know nothing about the original movie, but I recall this movie being released and it being such a huge deal. I get the symbolism of the movie, but damn it is a terrible idea for a script. I'm more of a Alice in Wonderland sort of fan. That's the symbolism that makes sense. I also don't see the need for the nudity or the sex. That's just a distraction from the terrible script. It's filler to get the viewer to stop thinking that this is a crappy boring movie.
God help us all. Is this what the younger generation thinks is comedy? I started watching the show and did my best to imagine it being funny but the more I watched the more dysfunctionality I saw between the various people and their partners. I know this is supposed to be a dark comedy and maybe I'll have to come back to it and watch it at a later time when I'm mentally ready to watch people be rude and detached and lacking any compassion or love. Seriously is this what that generation is like? Do they really treat each other that way? I can't imagine having friends like this or dating people like this or even marrying them. Either way I find nothing dark about it it's like a low budget pop sex party, 30 Something type show, or even a low budget Big Chill.
The premise is complete suckage. The opening scene with Lex, getting an old lady to sign away her fortune on her death bed? Like the rest of the family would fold? This would be dragged out in court for years. And on top of which, if she was married to him, why would he need her to sign over the funds? (and they can't even get it right with the attention to detail), the ship is going through a storm but the helicopter has its blades fully extended and not tied down? And America didn't rule the world, neither did the Romans or the British.
Then the director switches to when Superman arrives at a small town? Lex was already in his sixties? This isn't right. Lex was never that much older than Superman.
This is a very poorly written script. It's filled with inaccuracies and factual flaws in the first fifteen minutes that the reset of the movie goes directly down hill from there. It strays from the original story and it doesn't keep with Canon.
The beginning is fun and pointing out that Facebook isn't really a service you should use, and that Facebook steals all your personal information and pictures and then sells that information to big corporations so that they can sell you more crap, was awesome (because Facebook really does !@#$. Then the movie took a turn for the worse and started to use deus ex machina to make stuff happen. The ending isn't that great and seems to be more of a rush fix to bring about some sort of closure. The movie isn't fantastic. It could have been better, but it's ok for the kids and family.
This movie is terrible, just with the title alone. Project X? XTC? Xtasy? Ecstasy? When I first saw the title I thought it was about a USAF movie where they were giving chimps the party drug Ecstasy and then seeing if they could continue flying the bomber to drop the bombs.
A movie with Matthew Broderick and Helen Hunt, who play characters involved in a research USAF project to use chimps to fly and to see if they can continue with their mission, to drop their nukes on the enemy. The plot is very simple to follow, but it lacks any excitement or drama. It's not a terrible movie, but it isn't amazing.
This is a movie made during a time when the desire to be accurate was not desired. It reminds me of a lot of the John Wayne movies. The desire was to promote a feel good movie of America and its military, the wars they fought and the efforts of Patton. The movie lacks any reality. It would have been far better to present historical facts rather than attempting to make a false narrative of the reality of war, the reality of Patton and the reality of the politics of the two.
I'm pretty sure I wrote a review about this before, but since it seems to have disappeared I'll be more brutal.
This movie sucked. Period. There is nothing redeeming about it because they couldn't get anything right about the period other than it was England invading Scotland and there was fighting between the Scots and the English. The amount of creative license and deus ex machina used is obscenely rude. Trying to relate this to the real Wallace of this period is insulting. It would have been far better to make a real movie, about the real life of Wallace and the battles he fought against the English.
This was a movie from 1993, but it has the look and feel of the 1980's. Everything from the cinematography, the script and the soundtrack. The actors are all typical stars from that period also, with the lead role to Tom Cruise. Others include Gene Hackman, Hal Holbrook, Wilford Brimley, Ed Harris, Holly Hunter, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Terry Kinney, David Strathairn, Gary Busey and Steven Hill. This is a Who's Who time capsule of a movie.
I had never seen this movie, never really wanted to see it, for nearly thirty years. It wasn't a great movie, but it was acceptable. The script was boring in the middle and it was completely predictable, but it was entertaining enough to keep me glued to the screen for ninety minutes. Hotshot lawyer graduates, goes to a firm which offers him a ton of money and benefits, he learns that something isn't right, he becomes tied up in a scandal, he then has to balance saving his butt, his license, his marriage and his future with out being thrown in prison, losing his license and ending up hiding for the rest of his life.
I remember watching this on television when I was a kid. I remember my parents being involved with it. What did we know about American history? Nothing. Decades later, I've realized how horrible this show was and how it wrongly portrayed the American Indians and wrongly portrayed the Americans. There is so much wrong with this show that I now dislike it. The overacting is like a daytime Soap Opera. The facts are jumbled. The people misrepresented.
This is a far fetched story which has nothing to do with the original folklore of Jack and the Beanstalk. Someone got it in their head that they could change things to make it in to a feature length, low budget movie, with no consideration for the original story. The animation is terrible. The direction is terrible. The casting was OK. The script was terrible.
If you haven't seen Sing (the first movie), I recommend seeing it before you watch this one. There is a lot of carry over jokes and information you need to see first.
Other than this, you should just enjoy the movie. The entire family did and the kids were laughing. There are plenty of singing, dancing, and hit songs. The script is easy to follow, the characters are funny and the movie isn't slogged down with any politics, sex or drugs. It's just fun entertainment, the way a movie should be made.
The best version of the best story written of all time
I prefer to watch this movie more than any other version. The casting, acting and direction are all my favorites.
A Christmas Carol is the best written story of all time. It is my favorite book, written by my favorite writer. This version ranks #1 for me, ahead of the 1983 and the 1999 versions. The 1983 version is the George C Scott version and I also like that one very much. Patrick Stewart rounds out the 1999 version and I really like his style of acting.
Other versions of this are either too old or they are over produced. Many with bad casting, but I believe all of them rank higher than the average movies produced these days. It's the story which does it for me. It's an amazing story about the human ego, and how we have to overcome greed and a lack of empathy for others who suffer. It is very Buddhist to be honest with you. Love, Compassion and Understanding for all life.
This version is underwhelming. It isn't terrible, but I do not like the cinematography or the casting. This is still the best story/best book ever written, but this is not the best version of the movie. 1951, 1983 and 1999 are my favorites and even the 2009 Disney animated version is better than this one. Even then, the story teaches a lesson of learning empathy for the suffering of others, less you suffer the fate of all those who came before you, who did not put good will first in their life.
A Christmas Carol is the best written story of all time. It is written by Charles Dickens and it, I believe, is an all time classic, ranking it as #1 in all stories ever written, because of how it reflects the human ego and how we must strive to overcome the mental suffering we create through greed. It shows how love, compassion and understanding of others creates empathy in Spades.
The problem with this version is the animation. It is the only reason why this is not a 10/10. The faces have no expressions, no emotions. It isn't all that terrible and is bearable, but it does not hold a candle to the 1951, 1984 or the 1999 versions (in order of my favorites).
The script started out OK, but then it faded quickly. I didn't believe the age difference between the two characters, the little sister and the big sister was not acceptable. They should have had a younger actress play the part rather than trying to make Sandra Bullock younger with makeup. She's 58 for goodness sake. You don't have enough makeup, maybe if they spent money on CG?
The disheveled look of Sandra Bullock was tiresome. No makeup. No comb or brush. Egad! I found it unbelievable that any guy would take an interest in her.
The main bad guy, wow, what a mess of a script. So this guy wants revenge? So what does he do? He attacks his own brother? And then he kidnaps the younger sister, but he bothers to call the big sister and tell her to come to him? I thought he wanted to make her feels terrible by killing the only thing she loved? Why not just kill the younger sister and then dump the body? Oh, that's right, you can't have the perfect crime. You have to have closure? So you create an unnatural situation so the cops can come rescue them, then the younger sister finally gets to see her older sister and then POOF! She remembers everything.
I find it also unbelievable that she would take the fall for the little sister. That, while hidden and refreshing that I didn't see it earlier, is ridiculous. I felt it could have been written better.
The movie overall was depressing. It was dark and grey and meh. I wanted to kill myself just watching it. Oh, yeah, they filmed it in Seattle. Rainy and dismal weather. That's why pretty much every scene looked like it was either about to rain, had rained or was raining.