fardarter

Great photography, light, special effects, and really implausible plot. Dialogue is cretin or nonexistent. There is nothing strictly normal in this story. Are we so shallow at this point that we can only be entertained by some contrived pseudo-supernatural nonsense? Is the name of the show just a shallow irony? There is nothing sensate in this show - not sense8 at all. If we can't spell it with a figure or some 'cool' acronym then it's worth no sense at all? Can we have some dialogue please? Some story 'told' at least with some words in verbal mode? I am so tired of this supernatural super-bore... Let's have the characters exchange few sentences every once in a while. I don't know some dialogue that justifies the expense for makeup artists, computer light wizards, and other semi-literate $-grabbing techies.

The merit of this movie is the idea - quite brilliant. Acting is fine, mostly because the actors are all reasonably good-looking. My low score is perhaps due to my low tolerance for explosions, crashes, and unnecessary noise. In this particular movie, the same crash happens over and over again in all the sauces. There was a time when special effects and conflagrations impressed audiences very easily. In the 21st century, however, we have the technology to produce our own explosions on our own laptops, that is, if we really care to live with images of things blowing up on a regular basis. The repetition of the explosion in this movie is essential to the story, but the dialog is completely unnecessary at times. The main protagonist's anxiety about his mission is crucial to our appreciation of the film, but the whole business could have been compressed in about 25 minutes. I cannot spare you the trite feeling: who is going to give me these couple hours back?

This is a courageous movie, full of stirring moments, sensuality, authentic emotions, love, hatred, ignorance, self-discovery. Had it been launched in Europe, in France perhaps, it would have had major success. In the US, the race discourse, commingled with Jesus talk, environmentalism, identity politics, etc., completely overshadows the genuine merits of plot and cinematography. Acting is not always great, but the roles are not as hard as they look. There is one love scene between two young men in which the tension and the mutual attraction are so well calibrated that anyone, straight or gay, is inevitably touched. Anyone, male or female, gay or straight, can identify with the daring, the fear, the unavoidable accumulation of desire that turns the adolescent into adult. I love how the scene cameos the way the whole movie stages fear and anger, the major emotions in the story, and shows how love can channel them into something positive and constructive. The two young men are perhaps only in lust with one another, at least in that specific scene, but as we know from the plot they also love one another. They have known each other since childhood. This is a powerful story, tragic and beautiful, and true, and perhaps it will earn viewers a sense of peace. Odd that it id not make a bigger splash. 9 out of 10 stars is the minimum.

I always enjoy a good Bond movie and this one was no exception. Craig is a fine James Bond and we shall all miss him when he retires from the 007 role, just like we miss Sean Connery. The best Bond movies are action packed and embellished with the elegance of the characters, their clothes, the locations in which the scenes are shot, and the various eye-candy perks - Craig's posterior in tight chinos makes me want to go to the gym more and get tight chinos for myself. This modern Bond is more sensitive to the humanity of his 'girls', and yet his macho nature remains untainted. The overindulgence of the character is due to Le Carré, who used to be Her majesty's spy -- or was he a spy under his majesty? Can't recall. In any case, I LOVE M, Dame Dench is superb in the role - let's hope she stays. And perhaps fewer crashes and more dialog in the next Bond?

All people younger than 45 need to watch this movie and remember Harvey Milk and especially his boyfriend Scott Smith, who died of HIV complications in 1995. Too bad that people do not remember Smith as well as Milk. In the US we have a very short historical memory, and most do not even remember Milk. Sean Penn and James Franco look much more attractive than the two men they embody, and that is a good thing, because the movie is sad. Hard to take for those like myself, who had to live through the late 70s as gay youngsters and then through the 80s with friends dying of strange diseases. Had this historical piece been less than 2 hours long, I would have given it a 10. But the thing went on for almost two and half hours and it was sad, very sad. Do something fun and lighthearted after watching this great film. But go see it. It's a must.

As a relatively recent resident of the US, I continue to be astonished at how quickly American audiences forget their own history. I saw WUSA many years ago when I still lived in my native Italy (the Italian version was titled "Un Uomo Oggi" = "A Man Today"!). Two snippets of the film have been with me for all these years. The first is the radio host that invites all to drop what they are doing, go to the window, open it, and start screaming something like "I am fed up and I will no longer put up with this!" The second snippet is the last line delivered in the movie by the character interpreted by Paul Newman -- and I will not say what it says to avoid spoiling it. The themes are big and understandably audiences nowadays are impatient of 'dialog that sounds like speeches' (to quote an unfair reviewer on this site). The south, the issues of bigotry, racism, the Seventies, civic disobedience. At least the dialog has something to say, unlike so many films of the past 30 years. There is so much recent American history in this movie that it should be a mandatory assignment for college-age kids. Most people happily ignore its existence. Is there a way to convince anyone to make this piece available in DVD? It is too important to be neglected. No matter what Roger Greenspun says in his review appeared in the New York Times of November 2, 1970. In those days the Vietnam War coverage in the media made every single political reference seem like another opportunity for constipated American audiences to launch into yet one more conspiracy theory. And the Grenspun review blames WUSA for being 'ponderously allusive'. Maybe, with the hiatus of the past thirty-something years, the allusiveness will seem by now much less allusive and, who knows, we might enjoy this beautiful rendition of Robert Stone's novel. Besides the big issues, however, the movie is quite enjoyable. My vote of 8 only evaluates the viewing pleasure as entertainment.

Spurred by the outcry of outrage and controversy, I walked into the theater with high expectations. Laughter overcame me in several hilarious moments, especially with a joke involving a cheese ritual (can't spoil it, sorry). Overall, I was underwhelmed. Had the theater been more crowded I might perhaps have laughed more by going with the flow, but I confess I was a bit bored. The controversy grew old very quickly, as did the ethnic/religious jokes. Born and raised in Europe, I find many US-based stereotypes about non-Western cultures tragically un-funny, therefore US born and raised viewers should not trust my impressions. Most of my US friends (prevalently white Caucasians) laughed a lot. Most of my non-US friends left the theater wondering what was there to laugh so hard about. I laughed much harder for Young Frankenstein. My vote of 4/10 is generous and takes into account my admiration for the courageous enterprise. Had I seen a shorter feature of Borat on TV, I would have enjoyed it more.

This movie had very funny moments and the whole idea of a life first suspended -- for thirty-two years -- and then resumed exactly where it was left off promises great exhilaration. The plot is simple but cleverly executed with straightforward wit and healthy irony at the expense of much 'high-school' culture examined in a provocative way to repeat what many know (that racism is perniciously persistent in American education) but seldom face. Though far different in scope and much more ambitious, Crash comes to my mind as a term of comparison for the racism issue, but Strangers with Candy is neither as subtle nor as successful as Crash in making the audience confront their own denial about what racism is and how it manifests itself. Strangers with Candy is a truly funny movie with a somewhat serious message that never spoils the fun. I admit that in some moments I felt uncomfortable with the behaviors of some of the characters in relation to race; yet I do recognize that this is just a movie and reality is a lot uglier than any fantasy. But viewers should resist the notion that the movie is merely supposed to be funny. The plot and the purposefully unsubtle dialog inevitably should make one think of race and racism. I hope viewers will recognize that.

Sterne's novel delighted me, that's why I decided to go watch the movie in spite of the warnings from friends who saw or heard about it. Aside from a few funny moments, the movie was hard to watch -- a blatant exercise in collective onanism. I am glad I saw it, though, and I do grant the makers the difficulty of their task, i.e. filming a narrative that ought to be recited rather than acted; but what is the pay off? Should I have been entertained? If so, I have completely missed the point. I was bored to tears and kept watching the time. Finally, when the end titles relieved us, I realized I had gone to watch this movie only because, like the people involved in making it, I suppose, I have a profound admiration for Sterne's book. If nothing else, the movie convinced me to read the novel again.