Dcamplisson

I got sucked into this by Ben Mankewitz and his guest on TCM. I should've known better because Ben believes the most productive period Hollywood was the 60s and 70s, which is everybody knows this when I produced a lot of boring snd pretentious trash. His guest was on before, last year, and recommended an awful Vietnam era movie that was bizarre incoherent confusing and pointless. However for some reason I thought tonight would be different so I started watching " the meetings of Anna" This film really reinforces a lot of clichés about the French even though thr inaction (cannot see any action) takes place in Germany. The central figure is dull and dirty in every sense of the word. Because it's a French film there's no spoiler in saying there are Filthy people with poor hygiene and no clothes on. I don't think I've ever seen a French film people with people who kept on their clothes. And at least one frumpy lady who avoids showers and seems to wear no undies. LOL But apart from that I couldn't really tell you anything about it because there's no action or story.. There's really nothing to say. The characters are given to long speeches and stories with little or no point. Coincidentally the Germans in the movie speak very good French. If you have a broken lightbulb at home you might wanna munch on it while I watch this film so at least there's something mildly interesting going on in your life.

This is a tough one because the movie is actually potentially very interesting and it could've really developed into a pretty riveting story, sometimes the film has one basic flaw that you simply cannot get away from. Sometimes it's a flawed premise like in the movie "Fat and Away" wherein the upper class Irish character has an Irish accent when in reality it was a 100% English accents LOL. In this movie one of the huge problems is the father seems genuinein his dedication to his daughter, as well depicted and moving. But this is a post apocalyptic. And it is completely absurd and inexplicable that someone who is interested in self preservation of the defense of others, would simply avoid effective weapons of any kind.. The comment to explain is that "it's dangerous to be around guns" is absurd beyond belief. I can only assume that there's some political motive here however since were talking about complete breakdown of society, The whole anti-gun stuff really doesn't make any sense and is basically ludicrous. So every time a scene where danger presents itself occurs I couldn't help wondering why are these people dedicated to saving others, but then just hoping for the best when they could morally face up to the danger?? Jumping out windows Does not seem to be much of a plan on faced with people who have weapons and are intent on Violence. The question never did get resolved so ultimately it was just a kind of annoying and frustrating story.

This was a fascinating look at one manifestation of Protestantism and what happens when people Mistake a slice of pizza for the whole pie. Fixated on one verse of the Bible and having no intellectual tradition whatsoever, this group focuses on snake handling and slurping up poison. This could easily be just a mocking piece, but it gets beyond that. The pastor is indeed not too swift, but is not shown as a cult leader or tyrant. Just a bully and an educated man.

The film however does a very good job of showing the community, who basically are in educated hillbillies, with empathy and understanding. It also shows how ultimately humanity comes out even when their lives are layered in piles of ignorance. When crucial decisions need to be made, Humanity trumps misguided slavishness. One inexplicably missing element is Their liturgy. It is the most interesting thing about this group ( maybe the only interesting thing, without which there no different from thousands of other Protestant groups) is their liturgy. But there's only a tiny bit, which is treated artistically , rather than being served up raw. Having a stark presentation of the snake handling routine might have been more effective. It's very odd That there's very little of that visceral liturgy. . It would really Have been much better if there was a lot more liturgy so the viewer could understand more what the attraction is. The cast do a good job steering clear of cliche and stereotyping. They are able to look comfortable in the grumpy clothes and dilapidated buildings without becoming " other". Overall it was very interesting and entertaining although 4 more minutes swinging an anaconda would be added a star

This is a gem. A great story about two things. One the first all female team to enter an around the world race. And an almost Greek epic tale of perseverance and success. Edwards is shown "warts and all" with insecurities, temper tantrums and self doubt. Despite this, or maybe because of it, she emerges as a genuine heroine. Someone has the foresight to shoot a lot of film during the race so we don't just rely on interviews or narration, but we get to see the actual race and its marvelous. The interviews with the ladies are well edited and you really get a very good picture of their real lives back then. Not marring the film, but a bit distracting, is the musing o feminism which is probably inevitable, as they were mocked and patronized by other racers and by the media. However the doc shows, without irony how the nascent feminists don sexy swimsuits to distract the media. Then as now "isms" are generally not propelling the story. One minor issue (but again it doesn't spoil the film) is a lack of any explanation of terms that those unfamiliar with yacht racing may not understood. Several time "match racing" is mentioned but its never explained, so its unclear why it is important. Similarly, it is explained that boats can win a "leg" of a race, but its never explained how winning discrete legs figures in to winning overall. If it whomever wins most legs? Yes? No? Where the film really scores big is in showing how a race (and by implication anything else) is more than a race, and how rising to a challenge can change entire lives. Reminiscent of the "Seeing the Elephant" effect experienced by settlers who walked West in the USA during the theft of Indian lands, the race becomes something much bigger and much more significant. Although the film sometimes slips into misanthropy, it should, really, be able to inspire any women or (if I can mention them) men. Yes its about a female team in a race, but its really about humans in any situation where they can fail big (if you fail at sea you die) or succeed.

Low drama propaganda piece, probably effective in bluffing the Brits during WWII, but ultimately tiresome. Although the actresses are generally good looking, the film suffers from the stifling boredom of The real English society at the tine. Many British movies have a " nursery" quality in which people are two dimensional, virginal chaps who like a good singsong and a Jolly cup of tea and a big sandwich. They do not seem to have any way to cut bread so they are shown Ultiple times eating manly sandwiches. The interactions with the opposite sex are very British and sterile. It's mildly interesting as an example of a war home front genre film, but pales in comparison to USA efforts.

First , ignore what is in another review here, "After poisoning her boyfriend, her parents decide she should leave town". Disregard that entirely, Her parents did NOT poison anyone. Not in this film anyway . Fairly slow paced drama with a theme of "Psycho " where mysterious events centre around one person who appears normal, but has some serious " issues". The host family for the student do actually seem like a cohesive family though the script is not very friendly to them in some cases. It was written and directed by J. Milton, Who is most likely not the famous blind English poet who wrote Paradise Lost... They are an attractive cast. The father's slight "fro" gives him a bit of a " What's Happening Now" vibe.

The protagonist Sinclair does a good job with a mediocre script, fortunately her role calls for her to be sultry not loquacious. Others are not so fortunate. For example the daughter of the family has to say, with a straight face ,lines like, "she ( Sinclair) has sin in her name" She also gets a line copied from the real life John Wayne, "in Jacqueline, My friends call me Jackie, so you can call me Jacqueline" and she has to even spout a slogan from a license plates like " don't mess with Texas" Overall this is a relaxing afternoon thriller drama, not a late night horror. Have a spam sandwich not popcorn. . It's a quiet thriller suitable for just relaxing for 90 minutes and worth having a look, once. It is also intriguing enough, that even with slow paced, you keep watching because you kind a want to see who's going to get blame for what, who's going to get exonerated, knifed, or convicted. In right up to the last few minutes I really didn't know how it was going to resolve, so at least there's that strength. The actress who gets the challenging role of Sinclair does a good job with a clunky script. I just hoped this is not one of those vehicles which dooms, or almost dooms an actress ...think Linda Blair in any of the post Exorcist films, of Beaujold's near career suicide in Monsignor. And yes the Sinclair character is cute, however It's always important to remember to rate actresses on their performance, and not simply how attractive might be. I hope this rather flawed offering is a stepping stone, not a stumbling block for her. There is supposed to be brief nudity, but it may be better to think of that as subliminal. I certainly never spotted it. There is kind of a general sexual tension throughout the movie, which the actors and actresses handle very well despite the unfortunate script options.

This was shown in TMC, so I guessed it must have sone redeeming quality, despite being a cacophonous and eye wounding melange of noise and colour, I almost abandoned it after my ears were beset by the sound of men and women screaming ( no apparent reason for this) followed me sone guy yelling " rape me" and the N-word. There is a story of sorts but so much of the dialogue is either mumbled or drowned out by flute music that it was unclear what was being said. Some ofvthe rare unaccompanied dialogue revealed that the story was a vehicle fir cliches which were tired long before this film was made. The protagonist is struggling with it seems, PTSD. It's nice ndiqgnosed and untreated after eight years. His girl has a huge chip on her shoulder, or maybe a bag of them.the flashbacks to Vietnam show peasants under great stress, however, because this is actual footage, not re-enactments, it emphasizes how faux a lot of the protagonists supposed problems are. This film originally got no distribution, but after seeing it I'm not at all surprised as it's one of the least commercial and dullest films I can remember. It's the sort of stuff that people who would never walk out on a film, would walk out of. The politics expressed are more 70's than 80's, endless rants about " the man". It was not clear what the point was, but it took too long to realize " you've been took".

When I saw some notes that this was the character that James Bond ( zero zero seven) was based on I expected it to be fascinating and dramatic. Sadly it was unexpectedly dull. Although the locations were at time exotic, the characters moved around them without any apparent sense or urgency. The needs to escape at any cost was discussed but nothing supported it. The curmudgeonly clergyman and the put upon wife seemed two dimensional. And the agent suffered a doctor who like detachment and coolness. This may well be a requisite of secret agents, but it means that actions are undramatic as there is apparently no emotion involved.

There is love. There are good .rooming people, sex, yelling, abuse,ranting and swearing, but no love. The flimsy story is used to promote abortion and infidelity, selfishness and meanness. The actors are used to advance classic leftist notions like if you eat meat you should support aborting babies. This a very dull lecture interspersed with unnecessary but well filmed sex.

Well filmed and a close look at an Indian community. Sadly the story is not one that engenders much empathy for the family at is center. It does show how violence and selfishness are not reserved to any one ethnicity. Peasants being exploited and cheated victimize the weakest member of their family. If you disregard the rights of children you might find these people sympathetic. If you area realist you will see that they told gang up on the weak.

Maybe this should be funny. But it ant. The premise is flawed and while Sykes was a successful scriptwriter and TV actor he cannot carry this film. The script is boring and clichéd. The Italian accents ( LeMesieur's is painfully bad) and stereotypes, vendettas, donkeys, communists, fussy priests and mayors, frumpy mammas, are tiresome after a short while. Most of the actors are English so unconvincing as Sicilians The film seems to rely on buxom babes to keep people watching but this too is rather dull after a while. I found myself not bothering to follow the action( such as it was) because it was confusing and tired. British comedy doesn't always travel well and its not surprising that this odd yawn-fest was never shown in the USA. Id hardly ever say this of a film. But it not really worth watching. After it was over I couldn't think of any moment in it that had been even mildly amusing.

Murphy does all the right things but they are the same heroics and " it's okay I'm just shot in the chest so I ain't gonna flinch" routine as westerns had ten and twenty years before. It's hard to believe this film was made in the era of the American Indian movement and the Beatles etc. This film also reminds me of why the western faded. The Indians here are simple ciphers. They are portrayed as mindless " hostiles" and the western clichés are trotted out. The" whites" are heroics defenders, the Indians are savages. 1967 was far too late for that to play any more. I laughed when the opening line was " there were only a few brave men stopping the whole Territory of Arizona being overrun".they meant of course a few brave settlers from the east. But it struck me as odd that in 67 the line was not in any way used for irony. The few brave men were in fact Indians defending their community and the overrunning was being done by " whites". Overall it's workmanlike effort but nothing really distinguished this film from any production line western from the 50's. Murphy seems tired but competent and remarkably well preserved for a WWII veteran.

This is a realistic slice of life and reflects The struggles at the bottom of society and how millions of people live and the types of circumstances and challenges faced by the working class. the protagonist has a McJob and she and her boyfriend face challenges.

Realistically for folks in this type of situation most of the people they know can offer little help because they are facing multiple challenges of own. Matt and Naomi are a bit too good locking to successfully portray very poor people, who usually seem older tan their years. These two are very fit and attractive and do not seem on a level with their peers.

The main character in the film appears stronger than the men in her life (at first) but she turns out to be a loser and an immoral person who victimizes the weakest member of her family and shows herself to be pathetic. Of course she does this in order to " fix" her problems, but of course this will fix nothing and will simple add another negative factor, one that can never be corrected. ultimately it's a depressing film but in that it refers the reality of bad choices.

This is a hugely embarrassing effort and quite a shockingly patronizing film. The first hint of the approach is in the title. It's all about him, I mean HIM. the great one and a great number of white folks visit (After 1 hour 15 mins of not much happening) Indians assembled by a missionary to be zoo creatures to be ogled. They are paraded with the usual titillating shots of naked teens which are de riguer in these films where the Indians are exotic curiosities. Ludicrously our protagonist, after hearing the difficulties experienced by the yamomane Indians, takes time towards the end of the film to lament how hard it is for him to make friends because he is so rich and famous. a final moan is how busy he is ( he's actually retired) and how he and his assorted buddies roughed it ( no showers for six days). Fortunately this film is so dull and self indulgent it won't attract any viewers.

It has a great cast, Hopkins especially. However ....I kept waiting to see the characters break out of their middle class academic cocoon and touch the real world. But instead the film droned out through a silo of white privileged dullards who all seemed to have their heads up their Pi hole. I feel asleep twice and had to rewind and saw Paltrow ( skinny blonde) yelling about vegetarianism and jojoba etc. then I was sorry I had rewound. The kind of bland text continued with a series of first world problems and concerns that don't seem to connect with reality. Paltows concerns about her mental health seem quite justified as her behaviour is inexplicable but it's hard to tell when the character only interacts with people who are all rather academic and mathematicians who apparently (according to Jake) live on drugs because they are ( warning, another first world problem alert) afraid that their creativity peas at age 23. Boo hoo. I couldn't help wondering if this play featured peeps who had real jobs and lives would their concerns not be more real worldly.

Dull and tiresome, this story should be fascinating. A corrupt priest, global shenanigans, love, lust, war. But the action seems to go on in a weird Vatican vacuum. when I first watched this years ago I assumed I'd napped and missed huge chunks. Large numbers of years seem to Elapse without explanation. Rome goes from war time to peacetime without anyone seeming to notice. The woodeness of reeves is reminiscent of one of those jokes where they show the sae face 100 times with different emotions under them. Beaujold is lost but still cute. Reeves apparently blamed the editors of the film, but although we don't know what they cut, what they left is expressionless. In love scenes, when angry, when stressed his demeanor remains the same. After two hours of this I feel I've done penance. do watch it, the scenery is nice as is Genevieve.

I've seen too many of these films about unreal pseudo artistic people who live in an unreal world without groceries, kids, mortgages, traffic (none on their street) and are incredibly selfish. Margot at first seems like she might be dull but nice... But ten we find out her head is truly totally up her own business. Although she has a good life she chooses to disrespect what she has and prefers to indulge a fantasy and a cliché. But the cliché character of the alluring other.. ( a bohemian "artist" no less ) is a fantasy character. He exists to serve the story but isn't from anywhere and isn't going anywhere. None of the guys seem like real guys in this film. Margot doesn't appear to notice that the guy is simply Floating through life. He has a pretty impressive apartment for an underemployed pedicab driver and access to some other huge premises but no real job ( sorry rickshaw is a kid's job in the West) and the character isn't much beyond a fairy tale prince.

Real people like that are usually screwed up, criminals or druggies, which is why they have marginal jobs, but we are supposed to see this guy as Romeo. The other characters appear as two dimensional, all about the same age and fairly cute. There aren't many real people here with an existence that seems credible. .The line " new things are shiny" says it all. This about seeing a brass ring and grabbing it. Novelty as a value. Fine for a teen, but not when you are a certain age or in a different status in life. The Characters are mostly childish people seeking new toys. In that pursuit anything can be dispensed with. at the pool marriage is discussed as if it's nothing at all and commitments are simply convention. And the film acts like this is true which is why it fails. . Real people have real lives not these superficial,foppish selfish indulgent faux lives. Margot is all about Margot and her desires and wants. Her husband is, ultimately, an incredible wimp who appears to be okay With things that a real man would be angry about. Two dimensions at most. . And rickshaw boy is a 35 year old teenager haunting the margins looking for ..what? Sex?

If you rewrite this in your head with everyone being 14 years old then the silliness, shallowness of the relationships and fake lives, sexual self indulgence and promotion of instant gratification over commitment make perfect sense.

This is a not very well made and thinly disguised attempt to push the idea that having sex with children is acceptable. It is rather reminiscent of the Chariot of the Gods type of thing. It uses facts ( or ideas) plucked out of a great variety of unrelated cultures and presents them as somehow convincing proof that sex with kids is quite okay. Two clichés introduced are that Mary, mother of Jesus was 12 or 15 when she had the baby Jesus. There is really no discussion of this it s just put there as if it is persuasive. Then we hear about Mohammed and Aisha. Again there is absolutely no context given. It s even mentioned where or when they lived and no discussion of their relationship. It is just stated that she was nine. Jews aren't spared. The age for bar mizvah and bat mizvah are stated as if they have significance in this context. But I kind of doubt that lots of Jews consider 12 year old girls as legitimate sexual partners. The rest of it is just as bad. They have a modeling agency executive made unsupported claims such as " everyone wants to be a model". I don't know none who has that aspiration. However since the message is unsavoury and a bit hamfisted anyway, this doesn't really detract from the attempt to persuade. We hear about Greek man bit relationships and then, very oddly, they state as if it is a known fact that institutions such as the church in centuries past included sexual rituals between adults and children. I teach medieval history and I have no idea what they were talking about. Lots of "facts" are stated but without any evidence at all. For example it is supposedly common knowledge that most men prefer 16 year old girls no matter how old they themselves are. Sounds fishy. Maybe the people who made this strange film move in Different circles from the rest of us. Fortunately this is a short film so it was over before it got too prurient. I cannot call it a documentary as It is not at all factual or objective. It is more of a commercial for child sex. It's one of the most distasteful films I've seen and I'd suggest skipping it unless this is a topic that you find titillating. It does contain some stories about perverse acts that include sexual details. Their agenda is explicit only at the end of the film. They say " 18 is just an age" and " all sex should be consensual NO MATTER WHAT THE AGE". They don't Even bother to discuss the fact that kids cannot give informed consent.

Tiresome film about men in a weird and somewhat suspect macho culture shearing sheep, boozing, shearing more sheep and boozing more. It's an amazing slice of life. Men ( the few women in the movie are not relevant to the story) who seem to have little or no connection to life beyond booze and monotonous work. There's an interesting exposure to the arcane language of shearing but little interchange about much else of interest. It's a monoculture and not a hugely interesting one at that. The British and Irish working class origins of Aussie culture are apparent. Anyone familiar with the kinds of booze ridden, gender segregated cultures found in the British isles rural or working class ghettoes will be familiar with this culture. It was reminiscent of the culture portrayed in " Once were warriors" from neighbouring NZ. I watched the whole thing even though I was ready to dump it when the men started wiggling their naked bums, but it never really reached sny climax or conclusion.

This documentary gives an up close and personal view of poverty in India. It gives a face and a name to the usually anonymous beggars of India. It does not stint in serving up the unalloyed reality of their very difficult lives. However disturbingly the documentary highlights and promotes an organization which has a missionary focus, without being upfront about its nature. There is a request to support this organization but even then it's Christian mission is not revealed. Instead it is implied that it is a homeless aid org.

Something about the presenters' bland style and the name of the organization which seemed familiar from various local "crusades" made me suspicious enough to check this out. Sure enough the organization has a focus on promoting Christianity in "every village in India" (really? Hindu,Sikh and Muslim villages.?) even though this fact is never revealed. apart from that subterfuge this is an interesting slice of life. Points off for being sneaky.

This film was, at first sight, a turn off. The protagonist at first seems like a self indulgent loser. The camera remained still and the action, such as it was, took place entirely in a tiny dark apartment. The girl never leaves home except off camera. But viewed as a tragedy this makes sense. The action moving only by visitors, the single setting and the simple themes all add up to create a classic world of claustrophobia and sadness. The sex is honestly portrayed as empty. Unlike Hollywood moves which tend to glamorize sordid situations, in this film the sex scenes are depressing rather than titillating.

As the story plods along we begin to realize that the girl's apparent victim relationship with a sadist has an underlying motive. She needs him to help her reach a goal. ( shades of "a Taste of Cherries") Her conversations with her sexual partners are limited. She seems totally uninterested in her lovers and we could judge her as selfish until we see how she cares about her brother and how she lives vicariously through her neighbours. Despite themes of self destruction, abuse, lying, empty sex and loneliness, the film eventually includes a ray of optimism or art least a possibility of another life. I did understand why some reviewers were put off but I appreciated it rather then enjoyed it.