kino1969

SPOILERS (for anyone that hasn't watched the 11/28/16 episode)!

No wonder CBS sent this turkey over to the CW station! OK. My kids love 'The Flash' TV show. It is really interesting (outside most of the soapy 'love stories'). I even like it to a point. However, the so-called "cross-over" episode pretty much spelled the death of 'Supergirl' show. Granted, I really haven't seen many episodes (the ones I have BORED me and my children), but with the much hyped event this week, I decided to see what was in store for 'The Flash'.

Well, what was the "cross-over"?!? An out-of-place scene that looked to have been conveniently stuck within the episode (at the end?). It seemed to have been shot BEFORE any of 'The Flash' episodes this season. Uggh! So everyone sat through the entire episode? You mean little kids and teenagers whose parents aren't watching all of the lesbianism/out-of-closet/two-women-kissing scenes were subjected to that CRAPOLA? Really, CW? Luckily I was in the room and changed channels when the lesbianism poured through the screen!

Yes, the CW decided that the series was not even worth the effort that it put 1 1/2 minute "cross-over" at the very end of the 'Supergirl' episode! That's right, ratings must be SO BAD that lesbianism for nearly 10 WHOLE MINUTES was MORE IMPORTANT for ratings than anything else! Wow!

This episode should mark the death of this series on television! I will NOT return! Beware if you have small children, too. It is unforgivable to have them subjected to social issues that they have no business having to watch!

Obviously, the only other reviewer of this title is Hart D. Fisher himself (couldn't even think of an original "ID" to even attempt to hide yourself, huh?). This is another "entree" from the Penn Jillette-wannabe himself. Although it has some originality, the straight-to-video film is merely for those who are Fisher-addicts and graphic comic fans, and that is a very small group, indeed. Mr. Fisher had to go back to the 90s to even get some recognition. I watched the movie and was ultimately bored with the film school thesis type filmmaking that is apparent. The summary on this page pretty much sums-up the movie: a black serial killer and graphic horror. Original?? Maybe HD (not for "high definition") Fisher will one day graduate to the level of the big boys and stop making the same old, same old. 2 out of a whopping 10 for me, for some imagination. VHTF video, also. Just happened upon a copy.

Hesitantly, I decided to watch this movie. I had just seen the AWFUL "Crystal Skull" movie (which I have reviewed), and I wasn't expecting this movie to be much better. The movie is really not all that bad, but it isn't the overwhelming garbage that "Skull" was, either.

Probably like most other postings (I am assuming, given the breakdown of reviews - I NEVER pre-read reviews before my own reviewing on IMDb), the movie has little that is original, and there are plenty of holes that are troubling. However, I was wanting and willing to simply be entertained, and I (and my family) were at that. Favreau, director of "Iron Man," still kept true to his directing form, with action and pacing that held my attention (more or less). What is faulty is the story, which seems to be missing about 45 minutes. I believe the main problem with the film is that some producer (why does Spielberg's name pop-up) said, "Favreau, keep it at 120 minutes! No one will watch a 3-hour movie!" (I will add the line: "I don't want someone doing a better version than my 'War of the Worlds' 'masterpiece'!" -sarcasm, you know) Oh, the agony, and with names like Craig (always wonderful) and Harrison (equally so), this movie should NEVER have had the restrictions placed upon it like it had. I firmly believe that the problem with the movie stems from its producers, not the filmmakers per se.

That said, the movie has Harrison doing a great Eastwood from "Unforgiven" impersonation (voice and face), Craig doing a sort of "Magnificent Seven" role ala Bond, and (even though I'm not into multiculturalism) some more realistic portrayals of Indians than the stereotypes of cinematic lore. However, the plot merely replaces Indians with aliens and "cowboys" with "Americans" and falls back to twisting stereotypes around. Politics aside, why would aliens want something as "rubbery" as gold? Where did all the aliens go who were fighting? Why were the aliens, who couldn't see well in the dark, so darned great at slaughtering? How do you get a giant into a flying Mini Cooper?

Again, it is an entertaining film, if you just let it play. It's has faults (to be sure!), but I believe that some hands were "tied" so that the movie that one sees is not the intended one, but one that was produced for public consumption. I was disappointed to see talent wasted, but with Hollywood and finances the way they are nowadays, it's no wonder.

6 of 10. Just for entertainment value. If it weren't entertaining, it'd be an easy 2 stars ------ E.

This movie truly grew on me. Not only do I enjoy foreign movies, but movies set (this one partially) in Nazi Germany, with a dose of lesbianism (nothing graphic), humor, and with well- developed characters with inner turmoil make this a true "must see" work!

There are three stories, all centered around an elderly piano teacher: 1) She works in a women's detention center, teaching classic piano playing to the inmates, 2) a young "prodigy" shows-up and the teacher takes to her skills, remembers her lost love through her), and attempts to put her in a competition, and 3) a prison guard, who sees the old woman as a sort of protégé, is bitter about his "replacement" and the fact that he is humiliated by the girl having kicked his behind!

What the filmmakers do best in the narrative is develop their characters, with pathos and dramatic tension as well as humor and reality. It is superb storytelling, and many in Hollywood should take heed! This is why most of the great movies of the past decade or so have been those made abroad! The audience is switched from the past (Nazi era) to the present. Love lost in the past is love gained in the present (although physical love is out of the question). The audience understands each character and their motivations for their behavior. You truly identify with these characters and their sufferings.

I don't want to give away the movie's plot, so I will stop here.

I consider the movie a near-masterpiece, and I can't give it enough accolades. SUPERB PERFORMANCES ALL AROUND, from behind the camera to in front of it!!!

This is what "Aimee and Jaguar" should have been (see that review)!

9 of 10. ------- E.

I remember watching the first movie in the theatre. It was incredible and imaginative and REAL! That was the Spielberg touch!

Then came that 2nd movie - merely a vehicle for Spielberg's "mistress," the talentless Capshaw. I didn't even bother going to the theatre. I knew better. I saw it on VHS, and it was bad.

The 3rd movie had the Great Sean. Enough said?

I even enjoyed the television series when it was on.

Then came this garbage, and that is an understatement! I don't know what else I can add, other than I don't understand why anyone bothers spending money on the name of Spielberg or Lucas. One might as well watch Lucas' other modern marvels over and over and over.....

My children thought this movie was ridiculous, and they are all preteens! Spielberg must have found some of his CE3K aliens lying around his garage and came up with this stupidity. Why, Harrison, embarrass yourself? It's bad enough Blanchett (especially with that wig and unreal accent that makes her a dead ringer for Natasha Fatale) has, but, Harrison, you know better! Even more, I am disappointed with one of my favorite actors, John Hurt. Not only is he wasted here, he acts wasted. Where did he get the motivation? His character acts and looks like the reverse of Jar-Jar here! And poor Allen. Her hair has to cover the sides of her face so that the make-up artist can do less work at hiding her age! Oh, how I was waiting for Boris Badenov to help "Natasha" and Rocky & Bullwinkle to help save the day! Must I go on?!?

I hope Connery received a few million for the use of his photograph!

Why anyone would even attempt to give over 5 IMDb stars to this turkey is beyond me. Zero stars! -------- E.

This movie is seldom seen, but it should be. It takes many of the narratives of pre-Holocaust Jewish/Yiddish cinema, but twisting them in such a way as to make the viewer confront cinematic stereotypes that this films (and society) keep alive, including feminist, political, and (multi)cultural. Antin also creates a collision of past and present in which to dwell upon (and possibly change) the future. She obviously understands postmodern theories of film and people. However, it is not simply "in your face" propagandist cinema, as so many Hollywood features seems to be nowadays. There is a playfulness to the movie, and characterizations that were absent in early cinema are presented with a great degree of reality (out of wedlock pregnancy, rape, lesbianism, etc.).

The movie has the feel of Jackson's "Forgotten Silver," by taking a supposedly historic and real movie, making look like a great, historic, previously lost feature, but it is all a sham, as far as history goes. However, upon watching this movie, the viewer knows that it is a sham, but one that is attempting to teach how stereotypes are problematic.

To some viewers, this movie may seem a bit overdone and overreaching, but that is the point (in my opinion). Granted, it needs to be seen in the viewpoint of 1992, with the fighting in the Baltic and the rise of (ugh) multiculturalism, but the casual viewer will probably be entertained by the story, but those of us who enjoy the genre of Jewish Cinema would understand and thoroughly enjoy this movie!

8 of 10. -------- E. It also may look like it is just a rehashing of the past, but for students of Jewish studies and Jewish/Yiddish cinema, it is quite a well-made and well-thought-out movie.

Moro is with Dina out near where the Aral seashore used to be. He notices scorpions on the ground. He sits above them, gathering them into a jar, and tells Dina that he never saw scorpions there (Kazakhstan) 3 years before. Is he simply talking nonsense, or is he speaking about the return of the Kazakh people, or is he speaking of the failures of the Soviet Union, which took away Kazakh identity in exchange for (failed) modernization?

I am a huge fan of the band KINO (I remember first hearing their work in the mid-80s). I sat down with the director, Nugmanov, who is a great person. I have also seen "The Wild East." I love foreign cinema. Does this mean that my review is biased? Yes, to a point....

"The Needle" (only available on DVD either non-subtitled from Russia or in PAL format with multi-subtitles from Sweden), is "one of those movies for those who were fans of Tsoi." You'll read this over and over and over again! However, by only taking that position, one doesn't understand the HISTORIC importance of a band like KINO or a movie of this type.

Once upon a time, there was a place called the USSR. There was no allowance for individual expression, nor was there any films that were outside of State ideology. There was no drug use there. There were no gangs or blackmarket. That's how it was. Right??? NO. For one, Tsoi was extremely popular, and his lyrics were beautiful and poetic, and his music illegal. Movies that never existed (in the eyes of the State) somehow did exist ("The Kommissar," "Benya Krik," "Color of Pomegranates"). The Soviet Union had its problems, just like every country. When you think "Vodka," what country pops into one's head? It was great to be the state and control EVERY aspect of one's life for Socialism.

However, there were some great break-away filmmakers that wanted more, regardless of what SSR they originated. Tarkovsky was one (he went into self-exile), Paradjanov was "crucified" by authorities, but others, like Romm, were able to toe that fine line. How some other movies passed while others didn't is well worth analyzing. Nugmanov, who was best friends with Tsoi, made this sole feature that starred the late rock star. Because of this, Nugmanov's "Igla" and "The Far East" shall go down into history books as significant to the study of the Soviet Union (and glasnost), film, and music (and the Kazakh New Wave cinema movement). These movies were made in the waning years of the Soviet Union...

The movie is nearly a type of "commercial" vehicle for Tsoi, but it is also a "slap in the face" to the socialist regime that attempted to squelch free speech. Note the huge ship in the middle of a dried-up sea (I believe the Aral). The Kazakh people, like Nugmanov, definitely saw that their country was destroyed by socialist policy. Like the Indians in North America with alcohol abuse, drug abuse was a way of life in the SSR, but not allowed to be shown. There is no happiness through socialist realism. In reality, the SSR is barren, overcast, seedy, and sad. That it the way Nugmanov showed it, and he enjoyed placing Tsoi as the lead in it. There are other great characters (and acting) in the movie, most notable is Dina (Smirnova) and Spartak (Bashirov).

Oh, and the movie is about drug abuse and failed policy, but also about the coolness of Tsoi. But the "needle" could refer to the feel-good socialist realism that is like a drug by the State to distance or hide people from the reality of life. It can also be Nugmanov using film as a needle to inject the audience with a bit of reality.

Note how scenes of the movie begin and end with television programs. Try to "read" that!

It's not an entirely original plot, but it sure is a good movie, even with its ambiguities (like, why has Tsoi returned and who is he?). Decent film compositions, use of acting talent, and, yes, music by KINO!

9 of 10. ------- E.

Based on Sholem Asch's story/serial of the same name, "Uncle Moses" is an adaption set in NYC. It is the story of a Jewish man from a small town in the Pale who has come to America and owns a sweatshop that employs many people who came from the same small town. He falls for and marries a young woman who doesn't love him (she loves a young Marxist). The results.... well, you'll just have to watch it.

One of the most interesting details in the film is its setting of the 1930s NY's Yiddish- Jewish community, which was recreated many years later in "Ragtime" and "Hester Street." It no longer exists the way it did back then (or earlier), and the first few minutes of film show a glimpse of how it was (in a documentary footage style). Most of the movie is filmed in a New Jersey studio, and within 2 rooms. The movie is mostly about how money does not create happiness, nor purchase one's heart. The movie is also strong on peoples' and workers' rights during the Great Depression (it's a 1932 film), much like its country-set relative, "Grapes of Wrath" (John Ford).

The entire film is mostly spoken in Yiddish, a language rarely used in cinema. It does have English, showing that Jews from the Pale needed to use a franca lingua in business (much like today). For one who studies Jewish people in America, this film is priceless in this respect!

The acting is a little stagy (Schwartz was a big theatre producer and director and many films of this era were based on theatrical works, or they were musicals). The plot is also melodramatic, but not overly so (like "The Jazz Singer"). In my opinion, the lesser acting came from the character of Mashale, who doesn't really age and doesn't have the depth of characterization as she does in the original stories (she's a near-feminist in the book). This may be because the movie is an adaptation and Uncle Moses is where the audience would focus their attention. An what a great acting job Schwartz does!

The ending, which should look like be several years after the middle of the story, looks like it was done the same week. This always annoys me. Uncle Moses looks older, especially with the "sickly" makeup, but others look freshly out of the last shots. (I call this the "Untouchables Syndrome" - and if you have seen DePalma's movie, then you know what I am referring to).

The "stagey-ness" of the movie would probably leave the casual viewer somewhat bored, but the movie is definitely for the student of film, Jewish culture (especially US immigrant), and pre-Holocaust Jewish cinema. It is a pretty good movie, and historical for many reasons mentioned above. Great companion pieces include "Avalon," "Grapes of Wrath," and "Hester Street."

8 of 10. ---------- E.

I finally decided to watch this movie because I am highly interested in East German cinema (by DEFA). Most of the GDR's best-known movies are usually set during WWII or its after effects with heavy communist leanings. I have not had time to watch several "Red Westerns" that I own, but dramas such as "Jacob the Liar" and "Naked Among Wolves" were quite masterfully done, so I was eager to watch something different from the good ol' East German studio.

"Hot Summer" just seemed so strange: a teenage musical coming from a Communist country, one not completely known for being "fun" in any way, and I was surprised with this movie. Of what I have read (no, I haven't seen the documentary noted in other reviews), the lead actors in this movie had made several of these "beach musicals," all of which were popular, but banned from distribution by the state. I guess the authorities finally decided to produce a musical, and the restrictions are noticeable within the movie (the "law" student needed to remind the other teens about what is illegal, the co-ops reigning supreme, the equality between women and men with NO outward sex or strong forms of affection).

The movie has to do with a group of boys and girls going to the Baltic for summer break (not quite the Cote d'Azur!). Musical numbers fill and add to the narrative, which includes the story of a boy-crazy girl (Britt) who is being fought over by two of the boys. Other potential relationships are played-down or missing (after all, you need to be controlled, mentally and physically in such a country, so one can only present so much as not to be totally censored for going across the ideologic line).

The movie is set amongst agricultural cooperative and fishing community, of course. The music is quite good (the album was a huge seller in the GDR). The choreography was also excellent. The problem arises from the disjointed story, which is not quite timed right or told clearly (there is barely any real story). I had to replay several parts to understand what was happening. For example, the movie quickly changes from a song and dance musical about boys versus girls to a heavy drama. The mood changes so quickly, I didn't have a chance to truly enjoy the preceding number. After the movie ends, I realized that I wanted more, but, alas, I am watching it through Western eyes, and I have to remind myself it was made in East Germany.

Overall, the movie is more of a novelty, one from the era of a heavy handed government who attempted to make a movie that was far from reality, but maintaining ideological standards. After all, the GDR was not a wonderful utopia. Movies needed to conform to ideology, and individual auteur identity is greatly squelched here. The actors and actresses are quite attractive, but the audience needed those types (much like the USSR needed socialist realist figures), in order to show that "we aren't all that bad!" Historically, it is a fascinating movie!

To me, the best number is the song that really puts down Britt, after she is found to be playing the boys for suckers all along.

One mention: It is unfair to compare this movie to "Grease," and the Avalon/Funicello movies were way to comical and slapstick. This is a different movie, that owes a lot to those types of movies, though. Don't be suckered by the cover.

Not a horrible movie, by far, but not one of the greats from the GDR. The problems are mainly because of censorship and agenda, which restricted personal input and freedom of expression. It is for students of cinema and, perhaps, theatre people looking for ideas through the movie's great music and dance numbers, but not for this casual viewer. The casual viewer would probably want their life back.

6 of 10 for story; 9 of 10 for music and choreography.--------- E.

Based on the great Isaac Babel's "Odessa Tales," "Benya Krik" (unsure why it is shown as "Benny the Howl," unless his name is translated that way) is a movie based on Babel's famed, fictional Jewish gangster and filmed in Soviet Odessa during the "Golden Age" of Soviet cinema . It is LOOSELY based on the real-life gangster, Mikhail Vinnitsky. It is scripted by Babel, which, in itself, is a reason for seeing this movie.

The stories in Babel's "Odessa Tales." The individual stories on which this movie is based are "Froim Grach," "The King," and "How Things Were Done in Odessa." The Froim Grach and character is changed to that of one of Benya's henchmen, and the character in Babel's story is semi-morphed into Benya's character. The movie spans 4 years, from 1914 to 1918, and show Odessa as filled street urchins, gambling, and debauchery, where Benya rules with as strong honor system. He is the uncharacteristic hero, and how Babel adapts his original stories are, in itself, extremely interesting (think on how he had to keep his heroic character likable while changing the stories to fit ideology).

The ending was added. It was not part of the original stories, mostly because the Soviets had to keep their ideology alive. I won't give away the ending.

This movie, as I recall, quickly disappeared from distribution after it was made because of its content (a heroic and Jewish, albeit secular, gangster) and how it didn't keep within socialist ideological standards.

90 minutes long on the restored version on DVD that is available (imdb omits that above). The DVD is an excellent copy (but, supposedly, no sound at all, not even music!).

Well worth a look, and especially for the propaganda and ideology being mediated - the ending is pro-Soviet and was not in the original stories - like many of the early silent Soviet cinematic films that were adaptations ("Aelita," as an example.

Sidenote: Babel was killed by Stalin much later for being a Trotskyite. Babel's writings are still considered masterpieces.

And if you love the writings Babel and Sholom Aleichem as much as I do, then it is a MUST SEE! Also, try to read the 3 previously-mentioned stories BEFORE watching the film ("Froim Grach" last). You will see how adaptation - especially adaptation of literature to film in Soviet society - changes the meaning of the film and its characterizations, and which may make it dangerous to the government.

Great Movie. Strong 10 0f 10. ----- E.

This documentary by Pearl Gluck is a wonderful insight into the world of Hassidic Jews and the role of the woman in their society. Ms. Gluck, who does not conform to traditions (she is not quite secular, but doesn't strictly adhere to Hassidism), is in search of her ancestors' divan (sofa), which is given a spiritual status for its historical use by rabbis who owned it and slept/sat on it for well over a century. She not only interviews several people who no longer practice Hassidism, but she also follows the male-only movement of the sect to which her father belongs to get down to the reasoning behind a woman not being allowed to own such an item.

An underlying theme is that of her immediate family, especially acceptance from her father, which creates a highly-charged emotional layer to her documentary.

She visits a relative in Hungary, then goes on (what turns into) a spiritual journey into what it means to be a woman in the Hassidic community. It is truly a wonderful piece: an insight into her and how she personally perceives it, both in the US and abroad.

Great stuff! Deserving of a look, especially for those interested in Jewish studies and how women are treated. Easily 8 1/2 of 10.------ E.

A classic by Renoir. It's about French POWs in WWI Germany and how they work together to escape from a fortress-prison. It's a movie about comradery, society, and cultures of France, respect amongst officers (no matter which side one fights for), the complexities of what it means to be human, and how they work together and how they think about one another (no matter the sex, social status, religion, or language one speaks).

A beautiful, perfect movie in every way. An absolute MUST SEE for the cinephile!

10 of 10.------E.

I, personally, enjoyed this movie. Great action film which centers on a father's pursuit of his daughter who has been abducted by sex traffickers while on a trip to Paris.

However, although I enjoyed the movie, especially its acting and its pace, I didn't really see much that wasn't entirely new and inventive. I was thinking about being more of a modern version of the 1979 movie "Hardcore" being combined with the talents of Liam Neeson from Nolan's "Batman" movie. I didn't think this is a "deep" movie, but another of Luc Besson's action films, not unlike "The Fifth Element," Leon," and his scripted "Transporter" movies (the first of which was directed by Morel).

Sidenote: I am a fan of Besson (hence the higher rating), so I am slightly biased in my rating here.

Many may find this movie just another run-of-the-mill action movie, but it showcases Neeson well, showing a rough, poised individual and a sweet, misunderstood father/ex- husband.

A great companion piece to "Hardcore," if you want to cross analyze 2 movies for a paper.

8 of 10. ------ E.

I really don't understand the bad review(s), nor do I understand the low IMDb score given to this historical film.

This is a movie about a New York, upper class socialite girl (snobby Molly) who goes with her entrepreneur father to the Pale for a marriage of a cousin. She 'accidentally' gets married to a Hasidic man, Jacob. The father wants five years to pass before he allows the marriage to be approved. He lives in Vienna with his assimilated, rich uncle and... well, you'll have to watch it.

This is a brilliant movie about a certain era, when Jews were in a divided Diaspora of the assimilated West and the backwards East (the Pale). It is a forgotten era, of which only remnants remain. It is not for everyone. It is for those who admire Yiddish cinema (a near forgotten genre) and students of Jewish studies and silent cinema.

Well worth a look, especially for Molly Picon's work.

9 of 10. E.

This is one of many extremely interesting and important movies from East German Cinema, a cinema that has been forgotten and ignored until recent years (thanks First Run Features!!!).

First off, I read the English translation of Bruno Apitz' long novel BEFORE watching this movie, so this may be long-winded and speaks of the adaptations and East German cinema.

When I finally sat down to watch the adaptation (by Apitz and others), I was truly astounded by how close novel and movie were. Usually, film directors edit written stories to the point that the original intent and story is nearly lost under a pile of rhetoric and nonsense (oh, Spielberg, can you hear me??). Not here. There are some plot lines that are missing and characters that aren't fully developed and/or missing from the novel (like the character of Mandrill (the biggest "let down" for me), the janitor, Zweilling's wife, and many of the Nazis). It's not a huge problem when it comes to the smaller characters from the novel, in my opinion, because it is an adaptation. Where the problems lie is that the viewer must read the novel to get more 3-dimensionality to the characters and understand what is being cut from their cinematic viewing (through agenda-driven censorship). Apitz gives readers the characters' thoughts, and those thoughts can only be expressed through acting gestures, which can seem flat (sometimes silly) in the movie. However, this is East German cinema, which tends to be stagy more than fluid and natural. It is just a fact. If you see the East German version of 'Jacob the Liar' (also by director Beyer) you'll understand.

Let me backtrack with some info on East German cinema, if I can. After watching several movies from this country, it appears to me that censorship is extremely strong. East German filmmakers are NOT allowed to demean Germans, whether they are Nazis (as far as criticizing them being ethnic German) or otherwise. It's just against the communist agenda (one needs to get some history about the waning years of Soviet occupation to understand). A German is a German is a German, and it's the ideology that makes a true, whole spiritual entity (read: Communism). There are mean fascists and good communists. It's pretty straight forward. The Nazis are NOT allowed to be comrades (communists); they have "individuality" by having their own agendas, and they weasel their way out of any situation like cowards. East German movies (and novels) are strictly about mass victimization, not ethnicities or any "groups." For instance, the child is Jewish, but his Jewishness is relatively ignored in the movie (even though there is a reference to Auschwitz). The story is about comradery against the fascists. The ethnicities amongst the prisoners are erased, even though they are mentioned in the book (there is a Pole and a Russian in the movie, but weren't those Bloc countries?? The Dutch and the French ethnicities disappear from their characterizations in the book).

Back to the review... Most all of the acting is great (even though some is stagey, as I mentioned before). Armin Mueller Stahl is fantastic, as usual, and I wish he had more screen time. Glad he jumped out of East Germany, because you can see his potential greatness in this early movie until his mastery of acting today with the range of his abilities! The cinematography and direction are excellent, as much as the adaptation. This movie is a must for those studying East German cinema and the "genre" of concentration camp cinema. An excellent movie to analyze by non-communist eyes. I wish the scenes of brutality were more realistic, because they certainly are in the novel. Try to read the book BEFOREHAND (it is VHTF). It will not be easy to follow the final 15-20 minutes of the movie without some key information. Sometimes it just has to be done!

The movie is a fine example of adaptation and adhering to novel's plot.

9 of 10 -------- E.

This movie owes much to the Screwball Comedy genre. A gay man retraces his newly deceased (AIDS) partner's footsteps in Denton, Texas with an unmarried, living at home at 30, kooky female bankteller who "can't say 'No.'" It's a sort of road movie/screwball comedy.

I didn't think it was a bad movie at all, and I laughed several times. I thought the character of Travis was a bit wooden and 2-D. I'm not sure why someone who just lost his love would not even cry, but be slightly angered at their death (brooding). There should have been a little more depth in his character. The movie is sad and silly, touching and corny.

Wolfe usually puts out decent movies, and this is another in their DVD stash.

It's great to see another movie where AIDS plays a role in the plot, but, by 1998 (and now), the disease does not have the impact that it should in this movie, like it did in movies like "Longtime Companion," "Philadelphia," and "It's My Party." The fact that the men are gay is almost secondary to this movie (unfortunately). I don't have a reason for why this is the case in this movie. It certainly dulls the impact of the story.

I give it 7 of 10. Funny, engaging, and well-made for the most part. ------ E.

SIDENOTE: Also, to be demeaning and saying that heterosexuals won't "get" this movie is condescending and wrong. I am not gay, and neither is my wife, and we both very much "got" this movie. One of the main problems with this statement by the gay/lesbian community goes back to the 70s and 80s way of thinking about movies and who they are "made for." This is wrong in every case. Wexler, the director, did a fine job showing that movies with queer themes should be viewed as universal, something the "old school thinkers" tend to want to negate.

Even in its length, I wanted to see more.

Yes, Gilliam has the "Cimino Curse," but it is unwarranted. This documentary shows his "madness," but it is no more than that of other directing legends (Kubrick comes to mind). What happens to Gilliam is NOT his fault. If not, very little is. As the filmmakers keep repeating, "Munchausen, Munchausen, Munchausen." This documentary shows its audience all of the problems with making movies. It isn't as easy as many think. Gilliam and others do as much as they can to get the movie made, but flight training overhead, storms, and medical problems are always sprouting. I remember the good days of making student movies. For me, it was just terrible. Everything had to fit into a perfect line: timetables, money, actors, crew, sets. Hollywood just throws everything to some talentless hack, but those directors who have talent are constantly fighting any and all problems that arise. Does that make them eccentric? No. It makes them hard workers with a true love for the art of cinema.

That being said, this documentary shows the problems with film making. Extremely insightful and well done. To boot, the narration is given to Bridges.

8 of 10, mostly for it feeling too brief! 9 of 10 for the DVD with the Salman Rushdie interview, which is MUST SEE! ----- E.

With the amount of bad reviews that this movie has received, and I have taken them into account BEFORE seeing this movie, I was not surprised on the level of unimaginative thought put into this film. There is nothing new in the story. There are nothing but nonstop spurting of clichés and puns. There is no new storyline, and it is weak. The Smurf voices are really, really bad.

However, the movie is not a total disaster on the level of the horrid 1999 movie "Wild, Wild West." My children liked it, I thought it was what it was (sophmoric and lame). The voices were just HORRIBLE. I can't stand the hugely overrated (and that is an understatement) Katy Perry as it is, and her voice and lines pretty much sums up her talent and having her in this movie shows the level of voice "talent" that one would expect. Come on, George Lopez? Kenan Thompson? Jonathan Winters? Pee Wee Herman? I mean, other than Winters and Cumming (who are actors, not voices), which of the people on the list of voices has ANY talent? Certainly not Wolfie Puck, who is called a "chef" (ever been to one of his restaurants?). Why does the entire story revolve around "pseudo" Smurfs Gutsy, Narrator, or the "Scottish" Smurf. Jokey would have been an asset to the story, not the "Scottish" Smurf!

I have to say that I am giving 5 stars due to the talent of Azaria. Yes, he plays Gargamel better than any other actor that I could hope. Many call his work wasted, but I don't believe so. He stays in character, and the piece at the end rounds him off perfect. He is not to blame. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

And what is with the blatant "Product Placement"? Oh, that's right, it's a picture by SONY! Need I say more?

Again, there is nothing new or imaginative. I'd stick to the good, ol' 1980s cartoon series over this movie, but your kids may enjoy it for what it is: mindless entertainment. I liked "Looney Toons: Back in Action" much, much more.

5 of 10. Kids will probably like it.----- E.

SPOILERS! SPOILERS! Don't read if you haven't seen. (This review is based on the DVD watching, which, I understand, was done at a lesser aspect ratio than the original movie, and that is a shame, because it may be part of other reviewers' opinions that it was horrible, and they weren't watching the Gilliam (intended) version, but the producers' version) ----

After watching this movie with my wife, we both thought about what we saw and decided "Tideland" was not as bad as it is made to be by the numerous reviews to the contrary. Even Gilliam, in the DVD, makes clear that it will be loved or hated. In the first 30 minutes of the movie, I was automatically reminded of this movie being quite a bit like another movie of the same ilk: "The Reflecting Skin" (1990) with Viggo Mortensen (the "wasteland of isolated America, the characters, the story). These 2 movies could easily be watched side-by-side for comparisons.

Back to this movie: There are several problems that I found with this movie, and the novel may answer them: 1) The Jutland motif is vague and never returns after Jeff Bridges' character goes on and on about it. 2) The relationship between Noah (Bridges) and Dell's mother is vague (is it like the one between Dickens'/Noah's mother?), and 3) (more of Gilliam than the story) The dreamlike quality that is the staple of Gilliam movies are missing. For instance, I would have like to see more (even if short) dream sequences like the "Alice falling" and underwater one. There seems to be several incomplete characters, even though they are all pretty well- developed. For instance, wouldn't it have been awesome if Dickens was the offspring of Noah and Dell's mother?! (Again, I haven't read the story). Now that is Gilliam-DARK! It is hinted only in-passing.

"Tideland" is a dark, horrifying movie, and the cover of the DVD makes it look like it's a movie for everyone, and it IS NOT! It is definitely NOT for children (Much like Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are" is also not for children). It is not top-end Gilliam, like "Fisher King," but it is not crap by any means. It is, however, original, imaginative, and better than anything Hollywood has to offer, or has in the past 20 years!

Even though I (and my wife) liked this movie, it is obvious that it is not the full-throttle Gilliam that I would like to have seen. I had just watched the "LaMancha" documentary a few days before this movie, and it is quite obvious that Gilliam has his hands tied by the producers (read: budget) because of his "failings" (for lack of a better word) with "Munchausen" and "Quixote." It's a shame that Gilliam has the "Michael Cimino albatross" around his neck, for most of his work is quite masterful and it seems that bad luck is more his problem than any eccentricity or overinflated ego.

7 of 10. ------- E.

I give it 2 for only 2 really funny lines in the entire "mockumentary." This was just plain dumb, uninspired, lame. It looks to have been done at the last second by someone who obviously thinks Jar-Jar was the best idea EVER! (Unfortunately, the name George Lucas comes to mind.) There is nothing new or anything really imaginative. Obviously, many of the actors and directors in this mess must not have any work. It is brought to DVD by those (Lucas) who have rights to the SW franchise. If you have to get Spielberg to be in a short film, than you know that "funny" will not be part of the plan. I will never get my 20 minutes of life back! Go find "Chad Vader"! Now that is truly funny! Even better, any of the "Robot Chicken" dvds!

I finally sat down to watch this movie. I was expecting just a mess of a film. However, I was greatly surprised by it. It is definitely not for everyone. It relies on Abel Ferrera for its story, no doubt. What struck me was the gritty portrayal of a France that is usually unseen (albeit a fictionalized one) in French cinema. It is not the lighthearted "Amelie" or others of the ilk. No one is really likable. French society is not ideal. The two leads are not professional (except in the porn business), and their acting shows that, but their characters are not supposed to have any more depth than they do. Many of the victims are sleazy, and I, as a viewer, do not know whether to root for the antiheroes or not. That is the directors' strength in the movie, and precisely their point. These women are empowered feminists (as is one of the directors) and show their anger at not only men, but the industry that creates a male-dominated and desexualizes women in a male-oriented way. Just look at how the female victim at the ATM looks! Look at how the women at the sex club are "enjoying" themselves! Look at how the men "force" the women into pleasing them or how they attempt to control them from doing what they want to do to feel pleasure (whether it is sexual or, in the case of the protagonists, killing). This movie is a critique on society. The two women had enough and, like Michael Douglas in "Falling Down," go on a cross-country killing spree just for a release from reality and to control it at the same time. There are many hardcore sex acts, and the film is not in the same vein as "Cafe Flesh," but, like that film, it swerves from sex acts to a "normal" storyline. Again, NOT for everyone, so don't go out and rush to rent. I wish it were a bit better with acting and film stock, but it's hardly worth the 4.4 that IMDb shows it having! I give it 7 of 10. E.

Okay, move over Ramsay (fool)! Mr. T really knows how to take care of business. This is nearly a parody of reality TV, and really worth watching! Some of the episodes and parts are drop-dead funny, and some seem trite. Overall, it's always fun to watch American TV icons still play their roles with humor, and Mr. T knows who he is and never takes himself seriously. --- I'm not going to write episode synopses, so sit back with a beer and enjoy the ride (even if it's in your favorite chair - and if you've seen it, you know what I mean). It's also family friendly - my kids love it. -- - Warning - many of the shots are obviously staged and rehearsed beforehand, but Mr. T's poetry will make you forget about that! -- - E.

It's an extremely touching movie about xenophobia, traditional values, and hatred during WWII. All the cast is superb (especially Cumming, Reaser, Heusinger, and Smith! It's a different story, with beautiful cinematography. It's touching. I'm not going to touch on what the story is about (it's on the back cover of the DVD). --- Only problems I had is that 1) most of the characters just disappear at the end (like Lars, Frandsen, Brownie (Alex Kingston who I've never seen in anything but "ER" until this movie - and she does a good acting job, however, it is brief). Beatty and Heard are also (as usual) very good for their roles, 2) There are several "leftist" jabs at religion and capitalism that bothers me, and I don't understand why. I'm not an ultra-Conservative (by far), but I don't like (what feels to me as) cheap shots taken at these elements. However, after seeing where the money came to produce the movie (the sources are in the credits), it's no wonder why they are in there. It would have been given a perfect 10 if not for these jabs, which are somewhat out of historical context. 3) I don't know if there is a good reason why any of the 1968 or "present day" story is even necessary. Just keeping a chronological story of an immigrant mail order bride coming to America would have been great. --- I don't know about the historical accuracy about the backdrop of the movie, nor is it that problematic to me (in this instance). The movie is very good, but could have been a bit shorter and a little less critical about traditional values. --- E.

I read the biography FIRST, which, in itself, was decent (but not great). I was hoping that, in a 2+ hour movie, most of what was in the Erica Fischer's book would be in the movie, but there was quite a bit missing (especially the story of Lily and Felice AFTER Felice is taken to Theresienstadt, which took up the 2nd half of that book). I will give the makers of the movie the benefit of the doubt that they were probably working on a small budget and there may have been restrictions with filming in certain places at the time.------ The first half of the movie seems to be all over the place, with no real chronological series of events (the book is chronological, but wavers between the Nazi threat and the love between 2 women). After viewing the movie, and having read the book FIRST, I have come to the conclusion that the first part of the movie was erroneously edited backwards in chronological order (especially how they first met until they became lovers). However, there are 3 inexcusable problems with the movie: 1) It doesn't quite know how it wants to portray Felicity, whether as part of the communist underground (which is hardly touched upon with any accuracy).- I'm sure viewers wonder "who and what is Fritz or those other 3 women?"-, whether it wants to be about the taboo subject of lesbianism in Germany at the time, or if it wants to go off on Felicity's Jewish background (which is her downfall, although the loose communism subplot leads up to her downfall, but quickly changes to her Jewish background). 2) The character of Gunther is made to be a mean SOB, but Lily is made to be a subordinate little German housewife whose strength and dignity only ignites when she is mad at Felicity (who in the book is described as usually wearing long pants instead of skirts, and she wears skirts 95% of the time in the movie!). Yes, Gunther was a SOB, but Lily (as she comes across in the book) is just as bad (even though Ms. Fischer attempts to give her a victim-like persona with her writing). They were in a loveless marriage and Gunther had a mistress, but to have Gunther be the total baddie is unfair, seeing that Lily also committed adultery, and both knew about each others' lovers and preferences. Also, Lily, as it written in the book (intentional or not) never really comes across a great mother, but I doubt that after the lesbian "orgy" in a main scene in the movie that the women would be sleeping in the children's bedroom! 3) The Lily versus Inge story. It flickers 2x in the movie (at the very beginning and 1/2 way through the movie), but culminates at the end (in the "present" when they meet again). I didn't read a sub story in the book to this huge rift between them over Felice, neither did I recognize that they vied over her endlessly. I believe the makers took liberty with the book to give another level to the many antagonistic atmospheres throughout the movie. It's an unnecessary story. Also, it is not altogether clear whose story this is, whether it is Lily's or Ilse's or someone else's.----- Overall, as a person who truly enjoys movies set in Nazi Germany dealing with the many groups that were censured and ultimately murdered (Jews, gays, communists and other political "criminals," & even Russians), I am rather troubled by the overly simplistic way that several of these groups are (or maybe how they are "not") portrayed. I know it's a love story about forbidden love, but, in the end, it feels (to me) like a travesty in the memory of Felicity (and Lily, to a point) that such glaring omissions and inaccuracies are in the movie.----- The book, although problematic in its writing, is a much better source on the subject of Lily, Felice, and all of the other people that makes this story interesting. Overall, I would like to see a better movie made (and not by a TV director, which is always a problem to me). It is a great subject, with only "Bent" being the other well known movie (off the top of my head) about homosexuality and Nazi persecution.----- I do give a nod to the director for the pond scene near the end and the capture the same day of Felicity, which is not only noted in the book, but the re-creation is very well done. The actual photographs that were taken on the camera timer are in the book and on the cover of the book.-----Too much melodrama, and not enough respect for a true story or for history. Unfortunately, few movies have been made on the subject of homosexuality and Nazi victims.-----E.