Reviews (7)

  • So very bad in so many ways. This film has some really good actors playing really bad roles to collect really big checks. The score would stand as a "career worst" for Burt Bacharat for many years.

    The seemingly unlimited number of subplots (gold / greed, self fulfillment, spiritual cleansing, communal living, good vs evil, immortality, outlining one's past, etc.) help to hide any overall theme.

    The wardrobes, bad scripts, bad music, and cultural insults anchor this film firmly in the 1970s, as it is truly a polyester leisure suit of movies.

    I was glad to see TCM had the courage to air this, as I would have lived unaware of this rotten tomato. I cannot understand why they gave it 2.5 stars. This is one of the movies I have seen on that network that deserved one (or fewer) stars.
  • This movie could be best described as The Socialist Manifesto illustrated by Reubens. The filmmakers created a beautiful film that shows the value of what we must to preserve - albeit with highly questionable scientific, ecological, biological, and social data. The conclusion / findings were obviously pre-determined, as the information selected for the movie re-enforced the open border solution (but then we must keep in mind that two members of the crew were children of parents who entered the country illegally). They included politicians who vilified the President without producing any information about the negative affects of illegal immigration.

    In my opinion, they should have focused on the river and an honest assessment of the ecological impact. Having a bird-watcher talking in a very sad voice about the impact a wall would have on bird populations is a bit silly, as the impact would be minimal on the bird populations. Having someone point out that Americans will not be able to enjoy the pristine northern shore of the river, then show people fishing on a heavily littered southern shore that is bare of all flora and fauna doesn't really make the case very well.

    Maybe their next movie can focus on how we could increase the rate of legal immigration and temporary workers, eliminating the need for fences and walls.
  • I was so excited about a new Tarantino film hitting the screens. Nine of ten. Magnum Opas. Multi-threaded e.g. "Pulp Fiction." Was going to be better than "Django" and "Hateful Eight".

    Cinematography was great. Cast played their roles perfectly. He even interjected a bit of humor to keep it rolling. But it never got rolling. He forgot to interject a plot, a story, a reason to watch the film. Yes, we must unsheathe the word that cannot be spoken when speaking of the king of cool cinema - boring.

    I guess he gets one more shot to define his legacy.
  • It's very easy to understand what Welles was trying to do with this film. I just never found a point where I saw him doing anything about which I had any interest. Some of the cinematography is brilliant, but in most scenes it approaches irritating. Some of the acting is pitiful (the blonde who takes Hanaford's glass at the party sounds as though she has no discernible acting ability), and contrasted with Huston, Hopper, and some of the real actors, the differences are exaggerated and detrimental to the overall tone of the movie.

    The film itself is cliche', and the film inside the film would pass for a bad college project. Watching it, I wanted to stop many times, but kept wanting to give Welles the benefit of the doubt. It turned out to be a complete waste of time.
  • This was a good film - a feel good film that lightly addresses issues related to family, friendship, aging, and social issues. For a $3 million film, it is a winner. I expect we're going to see much more of Cangialosi as his films continue to improve and he gets the resources to put some more money in his projects. His directing is very good in this film, and his ability to engage Tom Berenger, Keith David and Bruce Dern shows that some experienced actors have faith in his ability to produce and direct a good flick.
  • Norm McDonald does a very poor job interviewing. His constant interrupting of his guests causes the viewers to miss interesting information - usually as the guest attempts to take the conversation away from stupid humor to something that would hold a viewer's attention. Openings are childish, closing songs are stupid and poorly performed, and cuts to non-existent commercials are poorly timed. I made it through about six episodes over the course of a week, as the guests showed promise. But I could only take so much. Time to can this one.
  • A truly terrible film. No reason to get into details as all facets suck. Bad cinematography - why would anyone film in 16MM today? Terrible story. Clich√©' acting. I would think it a college freshman's attempt to find deep meaning in life by stealing scenes from other films and capturing them with his uncle's camera. I've wasted too much time already.