signlady

Actually got this at DG in the $1 yellow envelope - Now the thing is - typically I don't expect much from the bargain basement. Ok, so it's a buck. If I hate it, no sweat. Those movies typically have ratings of 5.4 stars & lower. One out of ten will be a little gem.

Naturally, I come to IMdb bc I'm curious what this is about. I was surprised when I saw the overall rating. This squid/whale thing was like 7.1 stars?

So now I'm curious how it ended up being sold in the cheap, yellow envelope.

Apparently - and I'm just guessin' here - the ratings were boosted mostly by friends & family of the writer/director, AND everyone who's sentimental about Brooklyn in the 80's, AND/OR anyone still havin' issues in their adulthood over their parents divorce . . .

ANY-ways - what this movie is about;

Well first - it seems to be nothing more than personal therapeutical, catharsis for the writer director. I mean, maybe he should'a just kept a journal - but - coming from these narcissitic parents - he needed to vent I'm sure . . .

I will say - I might agree - that at least a few families - (tongue-in-cheek here) not only in Brooklyn, but across America had/have the same family dynamics going on - that is - families with such self-absorbed, narcissitic parents hell-bent on justifying their own whims regardless of who they mowed down in the process . . .

Seems to be a thing in America . . .

That's why this got 7stars. So, this a highly rated movie is really just a sad commentary on society.

It portrays the two adults who are totally selfish absorbed, selfish, & petty. The mom only slightly less so - the dad is an insecure, highly condescending, jerk who has managed to brainwash the older boy into thinkin' his dad is brilliant. The mom seems to use pet names for the kids to convince herself that she's a loving mom & justify her own self-gratifying behaviors.

There's no real connectedness or intimacy whatsoever in this family, ruled by these rotten parents.

(Fortunately, the older kid gets some reality in his brainwashed mind)

This film also portrays the collateral damage imposed on the two kids by their parents selfish, petty behavior, before & after the divorce. There were big issues before the divorce. The divorce simply turned on the spotlight. And the parents continue to destructively use the divorce & the kids to justify themselves. Then quite naturally, the kids are acting out, striving even more for acceptance, & so forth.

Probably the only real redeeming value of this film is - it can often answer the question - Why do kids grow up to become adults with issues? Well this flick portrays why - it's because they had immature, self-centered, self-gratifying, petty parents . . .

I give it one star for a portrayal of an answer to that question, one star for the actual work of acting the parts.

If I chose to think of this as just societal commentary, I probably would have to go 7 stars. But, there's enough educational material on family & individual dysfunction, not to mention the existing, observable, endless drumbeat of narcissism prevailing in our society today.

Altho I will allow that this might be educational to some small degree as a wee bit of insight into how insidious narcissitic behaviour can be.

This is a rather fun movie.

But, in my opinion - Astaire is just way, way too old. The romance scenes really took me out of the movie. He just isn't believable as someone Jo would be attracted to. He just isn't very attractive. Looked like he could be her grandfather. Also his character seemed more like an opportunist getting great photos -rather than a guy in love.

Astaire was born in 1899. Audrey born 1929 - but it SHOULD'A BEEN Gene Kelly (born 1912) - he would have been the experienced "older' fellow and a very believable love interest. So handsome & such phenomenal dancer & singer . . .

But . . . Just couldn't get into it - bc I had questions as it went along that just never got answered . . .

Sometimes when that happens, I watch the special features. Very often, even if I'm still not crazy about the movie, I at least understand some things more, and hearing the director & actors & how great the relationships on set were, how the idea & imagination was sparked . . for example the French director had a dream & creatively somewhat expanded the basic premise of two opposing gravitational worlds.

It IS beautifully filmed & all of that - but even a totally created world needs some foundational 'rules' to anchor the world in -

As one example, look at a movie like 'Inception' which could've been very confusing & hard to grasp, but it created AND followed some rules & used dialogued scenes to carefully explain the laws of that imagined indepth dream world.

Upside Down explains it's premise briefly then proceeds to depict scenes that just don't jive even with it's scant premise.

As one example of that - in one scene - Adams tie floated upward - but not his hair? Or his coat tail? Nothing in his pockets I guess?

Things like that took me out of the movie. I can settle-in with any kind of fantastical world - until it contradicts itself or does some random unexplained thing as Upside Down does.

Also - what happened to aunt Becky?

Why oil rain? Why trash in the streets? Is everyone that depressed? As an 'orphan' Adam could visit aunt Becky in her 2 story house but couldn't live with her? Why?

Why do lights gravitationally hang upside down & liquids in Edens world??- Wouldn't her world continue normally in their own gravity? These & many more questions are never addressed.

Anyway - my 4 stars are for some of the beautiful scenes, the actual acting, & the initial creative idea.

. . . This might be a fun one to watch on Mystery Science Theater ; D.

Yeh - really latetotheshow - but I can't help commenting on this one - period British movies are one of my fav genres - so here goes . . .

I should note that I have not read the book. Reviews by those who have are quite enlightening & I'm compelled to read it.

If 'spaghetti western' is a thing - this movie is a spaghetti period peice.

Overall this movie is just ok - but one tends to pick apart things - right out of the box - the kids literally saw each other one time at the creek - then ten or so years later john suddenly decides to jaunt over and seem to pretend about a decade has not passed - unrealistic grinning ensues and their teen interactions all speed along in unrealistic haste.

Tension gets randomly well built throughout the film then suddenly dropped.

A lot of scenes could have been discarded with more indepth scenes about Lorna's story - dilemma, feelings, etc instead.

Even without reading the book I can see that Lorna is relegated to the background in dialogue & any opportunity to act realistically or tell her story. The movie might as well have been titled 'John Ridd'.

For all this I blame the director. The actors,production, wardrobe, etc were fine. But sometimes, one can tell when a director is stifling the story & the actors.

REALLY late to the show - but this was a good period movie - wardrobe production & Abraham especially as an elderly Salieri.

Other than a few actual names, & a few random events very loosely interpreted as reality - this is just a purely fictional movie that simply portrays Mozart as a sort of amalgamation of many composers of the era.

Here is a quote from a bio on Salieri:

"Even as his (Salieri's) works dropped from performance, and he wrote no new operas after 1804, he still remained one of the most important and sought-after teachers of his generation, and his influence was felt in every aspect of Vienna's musical life. Franz Liszt, Franz Schubert, Ludwig van Beethoven, Anton Eberl, Johann Nepomuk Hummel and Franz Xaver Wolfgang Mozart were among the most famous of his (Salieri's) pupils.

Salieri's music slowly disappeared from the repertoire between 1800 and 1868 and was rarely heard after that period until the revival of his fame in the late 20th century. This revival was due to the fictionalized depiction of Salieri in Peter Shaffer's play Amadeus (1979) and the 1984 film version of the play.

The death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in 1791 at the age of 35 was followed by rumors that he and Salieri had been bitter rivals, and that Salieri had poisoned the younger composer; however, this has been proven untrue because the symptoms displayed by Mozart's illness did not indicate poisoning, and it is likely that they were, at least, mutually respectful peers. Despite denying the allegation, Salieri was greatly affected by the accusations and widespread public belief that he had contributed to Mozart's death, which contributed to his nervous breakdowns in later life."

There is also no indication that Mozart was suffering from 'daddy-issues' - or that his father was overly-controlling or overly-critical of his sons life. It appears that Mozart had natural talent & a prodigy-like ability with music at a very young age, which his father simply nurtured.

Anyway, enjoy the movie, beautiful sets, wardrobe, & wonderful acting for itself, while aware that this story is 90% fiction.

That said, I have this on DVD & watch it about once a year - which includes a very interesting & entertaining special feature of comments from almost all the production and several of the key actors.

There's about 2 of Cage's over 100 movies I like. Maybe 3 or 4 more I can tolerate.

Sorry - the king is so naked. I can't pretend he ain't. I watched 5 minutes of THIS farce & could see it was already ridiculous - Just couldn't get into it. Made little or no sense. Right up there with 'Becoming . . . ' whats-his-name . . . Oh yeh, 'John Malcovich . . . ' And besides that - the fact that Cage looked EXACTLY like Steve Carrel with that beard kept taking me out of the 5 minutes I endured . . . Well, 10 mins while writim' this review. Still wasn't interesting . . .

1 star bc there's no less available . . .

Funny how I stumbled upon this movie while looking at movies Richard Crenna has been in, after watching Catlow (again)

• this is one reason I love IMDb bc of how many ways you can research movies & actors, & find movies you've seen, or discover some you have yet to see as well - then discover actors you've forgotten & it just goes on & on connecting.

I also miss the comment board here on IMDb too. Seems like we are often kind'a chatting with each other via reviews . . .

I really enjoyed reading the (very few) reviews on this movie. I suspect most of us who saw this as kids are now in our 60s & 70s, right?

It's the same with the TV movie 'Sunshine' another bittersweet tear jerker 70s movie.

As a child, I think maybe 11 or so, I read the book 'A Girl Named Sooner'. Then the movie came on TV - both book & movie are very touching. Tho' now, some 50 years later I've forgotten details - but I remember vividly the bittersweet sadness of both book & movie, and the adorable little girl Sooner.

So many reviewers mentioned their visceral reaction to the crow scene, adding how it's still traumatic for them even today.

I tend to agree that young children should probably not watch the movie. But - some of the violent/sadistic/sexual things parents lackadaisically allow children to watch these days is astounding. I worry about it! I have no grandchildren - but - I'm kind'a glad. I'd worry about what they might get subjected to at a friend's house or somethin'!

Regarding the terrible crow scene; I only vaguely recall the scene, but not with emotional trauma . . . I was adopted, & also bullied almost everyday after school (throughout elementary school) - I think I somehow connected mentally or psychologically with the story & events more than emotionally.

But I certainly understand how that scene, and certain things we see as young children - even as adults - whether in movies or in real life - can be terribly traumatic.

I also find it very intriguing to discover the child who played the eponymous role began & ended her acting career with this one movie & so curious to know why.

Of course, it could be one or more of several reasons.

Anyway, thanx for your reviews on this trip down memory lane! I might read the book again one day if I can't find this on DVD.

I fail to understand why this movie with contradictory 'gentlemen' vs grungy, ghetto-trash style rates a 7.7, but The Avengers (1998) - which was perfectly delightful spy fun, rated only 3.8.

This Kingsman movie MIGHT have been fine sans the mass church killing, and especially without the EGREGIOUS use of the F word, & many other curse words.

But another one of the main reasons I hated it is bc of the premise of the 'gentleman' spies - supposed to be gentlemen but cuss like ghetto trash thugs? It was somewhat tolerable with the bad pub guys & eggsy as a street kid. But all the talk about 'manners' & the twice quoted 'manners makes man' - you'd think at least among the Kingsman vocabulary would change.

The entire movie was a real missed opportunity to make a guenuinely fun, cleaner movie.

Another point of angst: Roxanne who became Lancelot, apparently needed encouragement whereas none of the males did? I'm not a feminist, but she passed the tests - SO putting phrases in the script like, 'You can do this' & 'Good girl' was beyond dumb. Yeh. And it was said not by an older person, but by Eggsy! 'Good Girl' 😖

But then Arthur said she had 'the balls' to pull the trigger on her dog (turned out to be a blank) So I think it would've been FUN & cool to nickname her 'ROX-A-LOT' a mix of Roxanne with Lancelot, balls, & Rock bc she rocked all the tests.

But no. Rather than think creatively, the creators just preferred to think of culturally cliche trash in some ideological attempt to make a 'fun' 'contemporary' spy movie . . . ?

I guess the high ranking comes from ages about 10 to 30, bc we know of course an R rating means nothing to many younger parents anymore & the F word is used a commonly as conjunctions.

I had to do one star bc zero stars is not an option here.

Unless you can find the humour in dysfunctional family dynamics - you will hate this movie.

If your suffering in such a family, you may hate this movie.

Understandable.

It can be hard to watch dysfunction being made fun of.

Also, the lesbian agenda is promoted here - so if you don't want to endure that 'in your face' ideology, stay away.

Also, with a plethora of cuss words, & thematic elements this is not one for the kiddies - altho unfortunately, children in dysfunctional homes hear & see the reality & unhappiness up close & personal on the daily, sans humour. I'm on the fence about whether that child should see their dysfunction made into a redemptive comedy . . .

Would it give them guenuine hope or false hope? . . . tho - almost every person in dysfunction survives with just plain hope ...

Regarding comments about the close ages of Tammy & her matriarchs - it was not an error in casting, but intentional - the closeness in age between Tammy, & Tammy's mother & grandmother is meant to add to the humor of dysfunctional family situation - knowing the grandmother was & is promiscuous, became pregnant very young, & suggesting Tammy's mother also became pregnant quite young. IMHO - it's ridiculous so many people focused on that being some kind of dumb casting error, when it was anything but.

There were a few humourous moments in this film - for example, When grandma tells a shapeless guy wearing a sleeveless t-shirt: 'Muscle shirts are for muscles' Really funny.

McCarthy is funny bc somehow, she understands dysfunction & can portray it both realistically, with both sadness & hopelessness & yet make you want to laugh thru the knot in your throat. She's capable of showing the goodness in a person juxtaposed against the raunchy, obnoxious behavior - that shows the deep insecurity of the person she's portraying.

There's just something she gets about the dynamics of being a victim of circumstances combined with a realistic portrayal of people who impulsively act stupid or immature, but if they would stop behaving like an insecure-victim, they're are actually not stupid. And thankfully, these type movies she does so well - seems to show her character has to face the music for wrong-doing & take responsibility - but redemption comes from that - which is why people can say these movies are 'sad-sweet.

She shows how dysfunctional people almost seem to thrive on drama, they definitely crave & create drama, but by behaving in more mature ways, anyone can reduce or eliminate unnecessary drama, & be prepared to handle issues beyond our control with maturity.

I give this 1star movie 4 stars only bc it provoked me to these deeper thoughts - realizing these are not things the average movie-viewer would consider.

Bottom Line for me personally, this movie is not a 'keeper' - once was enough.

Just up front I'll tell ya - I know very little about the actual sport of rock climbing, extreme climbing, or being an adrenaline junkie for any reason. I'm also considered an old woman to anyone under 45,

but even I can say, a lot of things took me out of what could've been a better movie . . .

That said, as a 35 year painter, I've done some dumb stuff over the years from as high as 10 stories. Mostly ladders & lifts 3 stories or less. Veteran painters, scaffold builders, industrial workers, crane workers, can I get'a witness? How did we ever live this long?

ANYway - things that took me out of this movie - but also being fair, also bearing in mind some considerations;

First - these are girls who seem to be under 25 - I will acknowledge the ill-prepared, impetuous, hot-dog, stupidity-factor of the AVERAGE young adult - which in this case, actually adds to the realism -

Just to name a few blatantly obvious character stupidity factors and unrealistic portrayals of things:

* No fail-safes - like letting at least one other friend know the plan

* ONLY 50ft of rope. Not even a survival bracelet?

* Little or no valid tie off euipment

* Very little rappelling equipmemt

* Zero gloves

* Totally unaware, not even taking a single moment of considering the condition of the structure, the rust, the guy wires, AND continuing even after a rung breaks off

* Also, the season is not really mentioned but, if it's late spring, summer, or early fall - your hands would blister on hot metal by about rung 4.

* Were we supposed to think these young adults were 'experienced' or trained climbers? Just self-taight climbers? Or just plain ol' adrenaline junkies? I mean, the latter explanation is the only one that holds up this story line.

I do realize, as with all suspense type action movies, if those realities were addressed & portrayed, we wouldn't have any suspenseful crisis scenes, would we.

Finally, about the most entertaining part of the movie was the too-short special feature 'Making of FALL' which is really what garnered my 4 star rating.

The gals did a lot of their own stunts on a customer built exterior set tower 100ft up! They had to endure the actual weather - wind, sand, & storms during the on-site shoot. I can fully appreciate that, AND they didn't use green screen or CGI stuff. They also endured an onslaught of 'flying ants' on the set which I can only assume were termites.

It's kind of stunning to think of how much crew was at this location & no one could identify 'termites' They just called them 'flying ants'. 🙄 I really worry about the education & life experiences so many people seem to be needing . . .

I mean - meets Alice in Wonderland AND Go Ask Alice plus the Elizabeth Bathory story also present.

Tell ya right up front: yes, spoilers.

* This movie was fairly interesting until the scene where suddenly, out of the blue, we are handed mysticism with our futuristic, sci-fi story, as the Duchess becomes zombie-like . . . (but great casting 'Resident'ially speaking).

There was no explanation for this scene with the duchess other than some slight clues that the duchess was a scorned woman, steeping in anger, often feigning self-control bc of her coming rewards . . . The bodies of the girls who were cloned . . .

And the words of the duchess in the secret death garden seemed to suggest apparently the blood of clone-donators was keeping her youthful . . . ??

Also - I think when your running away, tearing thru the dark in garden of wild rosebushes containing dead bodies & running into a blood sucking duchess . . . There's a lot a director could do to make that more realistic & suspenseful -

1. Like, if you're in a dress made of tull, it would catch and tear a lot. They just ran thru there like it was soft butter . .

2. Even before you discovered dead bodies, wouldn't you smell them first?

And wouldn't you say to your friend, 'WHAT is that terrible smell?!'

3. The character Uma played that scene almost speechless - I think she called out to the other girl once or twice, while the other girl who had been with Uma was frequently calling her for help. I reckon she was just speechless bc of who all she saw there. But IMHO - it's kinda like the script & the director took a lunch break during that scene. Something was missing.

Other observations:

* I thought the scenes of the clones hanging out in the dark catacomb pool was unecessarily bewildering, their facial bandages looked ridiculous, & an explanation of the pool could have been offered. It also seemed silly or inexplicable why they suddenly were so forthcoming with revealing themselves, except maybe they been just dyin' to be seen & chat.

* We also don't get a lot of back story about the narcissitic billionaire 'son' who apparently funds this island world.

But . . . After writing that point, I can see we don't need more. Lol

* A lot of the scenes with the famous songstress made no sense, & after she left the island & later was seen on social media, it made no sense why or how Uma could know or say, 'Thats not her.' - even before she knew what was really going there.

* But the ending with Uma & Anna was a redeemable pay off for all the problem areas, except I will always wonder what it meant for the one who stayed on the island.

I think it was cool that we really don't know which one stayed & which one left.

* I gave this a middling 5 stars for the visually stunning wardrobe & sets & all the other scenes that carried a potentially good story.

* The special features were interesting bc the set designers talked about all the architectural influences used.

* Also, this story kinda represents how cloning could really go awry & create serious ramifications for future society.

I like a movie that creates thought provoking, philosophical conversation. If you enjoy that, this might be a good one to watch with friends & have a great discussion after.

It wasn't a wasted movie night. Worth 2 bux to rent from Redbox.

Tells the basic story of Robin Hood with a few different changes & tries to do it mixing more contemporary styles costumes & especially the way the scenes, the action & music are cut & put together..

In fact, I kept thinking the whole time - this director is tryin' to imitate Guy Ritchie, and can't do it.

I'm not sayin' it was a Guy Ritchie copy attempt - but it sure seemed like that's what they were TRYIN' to do . . .

And it was not even close to achieving his unique style.

Younger teens will probably really enjoy this. I suppose it's filmed like a live action video game.

I also thought there could'a been a bit more humor, some lost opportunities for humor. The cast was good.

Russell Crowes Robin Hood remains my favourite of the many movies that have portrayed the story.

I can't believe I have not reviewed this movie here yet!! This is one of my favourite keeper movies - I reckon I watch it 3 times a year. If doing a movie night with friends it's among the first I suggest.

And the soundtrack is amazing.

You fall in love with not only the star of the fil, Red dog, but also all the characters portrayed here, portraying how Red dog brought this remote mining community together.

I expect if you were around any type of construction boom-towns of the 70s anywhere, you will really identify with this film.

This movie has all the elements - history, drama, comedy, romance, tragedy, hope, location, & a fantastic cast, crew, & production team that brought this story together perfectly.

The DVD also has very entertaining special features.

There should be more movies like this.

I got this movie on DVD - the story sounded good, I really like Carlyle in other movies.

But the main problem - there were no captions. They were even 'unavailable' on my TVs CC option. I really don't see how anyone could understand the dialogue without captions - much of it whispered, mumbled, or with music.

Secondly, I thought a lot of scenes were redundant and/or over long. A lot of scenes didn't move the story enough to hold my interest

I also didn't care for the age of the 'beau' character. Too close to the age of his daughter . . ? Also the Beau character was not well written, therefore not well played. Or maybe the character was just cliche'.

If only it had captions, maybe I would've been more interested in this story.

I only 'liked' this movie - Of course, the art is stunning, & I realize the creators of the movie had to do a lot of guess-work to portray this woman bc there seems to be very little info about her. But therein lies the issue. They just elongated every scene unecessarily - for what?

The DVD I viewed had an interesting 'making of' featurette, but this mostly talked about the production elements - no special references to any historical info that informed the choices of this portrayal other than the actual paintings that exist.

The scenes of her joy in contact with nature were delightful, but this movie could have been shortened considerably by eliminating endless walking & housekeeping scenes. After so many unnecessary scenes it just slowed the story down too much.

I suppose the director wanted to immerse us in the mundane-ness of Seraphines life . . .

But after a while it just seemed super redundant. Egregious. As if the director just isn't convinced that I understand her hard life.

And that leads me to another thing that took me out of the movie even more - the actress for Seraphine was too large.

The two actual images that exist of this woman show a very short, petite, tho possibly muscular woman. The actress who portrayed seraphine did a fine job as an actress. But I'm just sayin' - considering the basic facts: the actual size of Seraphine according to existing photos, the hard worker she was, as much as she very likely did walk & climb stairs, & considering the period where she was portrayed as needy - the size of this actress just didn't jive.

The other issue I had is that somehow, I just couldn't seem to get invested in the artist, the art patron, or his sister, or his partner. Probably bc of the story being interrupted with endless repetitive scenes.

The only thing I did care about was her art, and I liked it before I saw the movie, and alas, the movie didn't do a thing to increase that.

And this would not normally be a 'keeper'-DVD for me, but bc I like her art I will keep it (& just fast fwd thru the ongoing redundant scenes straight to the scenes of art discussion, actual painting scenes, & scenes of her enjoying nature.

I've seen the '91 version. My most vivid recollection of PB91 is that the characters played by Swayze & Reeves had a serious bromance. There was defintely a chemistry there - I think they might have even had an affair off screen LOL I also liked that PB91 was an action movie directed by a talented woman.

But, I like the 2015 better for several reasons -

* There's a variety of interesting extreme sports - not just surfing. The action was immersive. I didn't even think about CGI in any scene. It all looked real & like the guys were really in it.

* There's a variety of great locations & panoramic shots I really enjoyed. Epic vistas.

* I liked the different kind of chemistry portrayed by main characters - it seemed more guenuine, - there was earned respect & trust but always tentative at the same time. They were always reading each other. IMHO - this kind of guy relationship was more real & had deeper meaning than a 'guy-crush-bromance'.

* It is not a vehicle for any 'over-used celebrity'

* I had never seen the actor who played Utah - he reminded me a lot of Heath Ledger . . .

* It's rated PG-13

* It's a decent action & popcorn movie night. Hope you can enjoy it that way too.

So I give it 7 stars.

🎸

Late to review here - altho this is a keeper movie I rewatch every 12 -15 months as soon as it became available on DVD -

It is beautifully done & there are many 8, 9, & 10 star reviews here who very eloquently explain why.

This movie should have had an even higher overall rating than just 6.9 At the very least an 8.5

To understand this, I read the low star reviews and I found - in every low star review the same complaint - the second half of the movie seems 'all over the place' , 'disconnected', 'chaotic'. A few even admitted to not knowing much about Goya.

Yeh? So WHY write a review?

Because this entire story portrayal - which obviously, & everyone unanimously knows is seen thru the eyes of Goya, absolutely perfectly depicts in the second half of the movie the disconnected, chaotic way any person going deaf & becoming completely deaf would see the world.

That's exactly why the movie is so brilliant. To be able to put the viewer right in the middle of this kind of confusion, to be looking right out of Goyas eyes at the world happening around him. Of course, if you're writing 3 star reviews without this understanding your wasting your time & ours.

Before you write reviews, do some studying. Then if you decide to write a low review at least it will be an educated one.

This is simply, my kinda movie.

The fact that I understand dogs has somethin' to do with it.

But the story line is great, there's humor, drama, portrayal of real issues, & this movie has a great sound track too.

I also like many movies Channing Tatum happens to be in, 'redemption' themes.

I'm not one to watch a movie just bc an actor is easy on the eyes. (he is, but he's also young enough to be my son)

No, it's just his acting. He just fits & acts narural & real in every role.

I think I have 5 or 6 DVDS with him now - right off the top of my head - The Eagle, Jupiter Ascending, Dear John, Logan Lucky, Public Enemies & now I'll get Dog. These are all very different type roles, but most of them have that sort of 'redemption' theme.

I don't have Netflix or any kind of internet TV or movie viewing. I don't even get the free channels on TV. I don't do bluerays.

I only do DVDS. (have around 800)

If I see a movie in-theater, at a friend's house, or rent it, & I know I'll watch it again & again, I get it on DVD.

And this one is a keeper!

I really appreciate that it was produced as a family friendly movie too.

Meanwhile, if you're not a dog lover, &/or you're not a fan of military issues, or anything that portrays PTSD - avoid this movie.

Otherwise, I think you'll love it.

Very Latetotheshow yet again . . .

My review is yet again as much about the reviewers as the actual movies . . .

I offer this observation ... If all the low star reviewers and all the big star reviewers watched this movie again 25 years later - I'm pretty sure, they'd track more middling - 5 stars, not all, but probably most of them.

The 1 & 2 star haters would increase to 5 stars.

And the 9 &10 star lovers would decrease to 5 stars.

And we would still have pretty much the same current rating we have now 5.4.

Those extreme reviews just cancel each other out anyway.

And why such extreme opinions?

As with just about ALL movies these days expectations are ridiculous. Honestly, who can live up to the expectations movie goers have?

Low star reviewers were insanely, but quite naturally, disappointed, no extreme expectation was met. High star reviewers were still in high expectation mode, and therefore in denial of accepting less (also some were likely friends & family simply tryin' to boost the rating) all because, once again a movie didn't meet ridiculous expectations. (eg; based on emotion, not logic)

What if movies just came out to simply to be seen as they are without insane hype that didn't create this emotional, expecting-angst??

Right. I know. This'll never happen.

Well . . . ANYWAY . . .

Godzilla was a perfectly fine, average entertaining, popcorn indulging movie night! (see my 5 stars) It's not a keeper I'll watch over & over, but it satisfied an evening of movie entertainment.

Btw - I was never a big fan of the old Godzilla movie I saw as a kid - it was just cheezy to me. It looked like a rubber toy not even as flexible as Gumby - and in the same ridiculous genre as The Fly, Creature from the Black Lagoon, that movie with the giant rabbits, etc etc.

For their era and tech at the time, they were ground breaking, and certainly exciting to certain age groups. I watched them as a kid like everyone else, 'cause there wasn't nothin' else to watch (lol).

But I'm not part of the cult that claims these movies were excellent or whatever makes them such 'cult-following' fodder that are somehow now 'the standard' ...? Everything compares to them??

I reckon I'll never really understand why those old cheezy 'monster' movies are so exceptionally held up as standards for today & have 'cult followings'. . . I'd say it's largely related to the same theory of expectations that illicted strong emotions in the viewers, and anytime they think of or see these movies, they relive those emotions. It's not based on reality or any logic.

How's that for gettin' into the psyche of movie reviewers????

A seller sent me this dvd to make up for some dud dvds I purchased. I don't recall ever knowing this movie existed, so . . .

I came here to read reviews. (and also the parents guide, which I often do with any R movie)

Read a few glowing reviews.

9 & 10 star reviews are almost always skewed by outrageous, biased, irrational adoration.

Read a few middling 5 star reviews - they're usually, almost always more realistic.

But after reading all the low star reviews?

I felt like I needed a tetanus shot.

So I didn't even watch this movie.

Reviews are here for a reason. Trust your fellow movie reviewer . . . And to them I say thanx for helping me save my time.

23 yearslatetotheshow . . . But better late than never.

Can't think what I was doin' 23 years ago that I missed this movie - but a friend gave me a bunch of DVDs and this was amongst them.

And I'm so glad.

What a great contemporary western. The cast and story portrayed here are great, and the music is beautiful. I'm a musician (bass & guitar) and already learning Marty Stuarts beautiful song 'Far Away'.

And scene compositions were georgeous.

But - as I've discovered the movie had to be drastically cut - I believe that's why some of the story seems a little out of context/disjointed, missin' . . . Definitely left me wantin' more, and I ain't gonna read the book . . .

So, hey Billy, where's that full length directors cut?

I'll give much more than a buffalo nickel if you'll just release that on dvd . . . 😉

Meanwhile, All the Pretty Horses is a keeper - going in with all my other westerns - I'll watch again & again . . .

First - I'm not familiar with this director or his other movies, so my review is just simply as a person who chose a movie based on the usual reasons, in this case, a good cast.

Secondly, there is zero comedy in this movie. The 'horror' is the realistic portrayal of mental illness.

Obviously, this whole movie is meant to put you in the head of a paranoid schizophrenic. Including the long tedious 3hr run time - further trying to make you see what it's like to live in the chaotic monotony of insanity.

In this case, insanity is caused by an extremely controlling, abusive, narcissitic (high-drama) mother, (who has her own mommy issues) and with her extensive finances, has staged her own death (and hired the therapist who is giving Beau hallucinagents) We see the extent of her rigid, insurmountable control on his whole life culminating in a son reduced to insanity . . .

The problem(s): The director assumes people want to think this deeply, or even know enough psychology to do so.

Hence reviews illustrate an overall disdain, disgust, confusion, and even boredom.

Others who don't really understand mental illness rave that this is ART and throw 10 stars at it.

And the director tries to make it 'light' enough to be labled a 'dark' comedy???

Poor judgement.

Dismal failure as a comedy.

Was he tryin' to make fun of mental illness???

If so, that's incredibly NOT ok.

Or was the filmaker trying to tell his anguishing life story in a way that tries to spare us some intensity by insinuating humor?

If so, that didn't work either.

The plot synopsis uses the word 'anxiety' to describe Beau, (as do many reviews).

Completely wrong.

No wonder so many were disappointed.

As devastating as anxiety can be, I fail to see it as an adequate word to fully describe Beau. He is beyond 'anxiety'. He is a full blown paranoid schizophrenic complete with elaborate hallucinations (seemingly caused by meds the fake therapist prescribed).

This movie portrays how dysfunction & mental illness operates, and we get a few clues as to why Beau is as he is. His angst, memories, & ongoing utter confusion is heart wrenching to watch.

Also the movie clearly portrays clues that the therapist is amiss - his nonchalant detachment, leading questions, and 'new' drug pushing are all clues - and then we finally realize he's just some guy paid off by the mom. This was a big key to his perceptions & hallucinations

The movie did portray mental illness pretty well, IF you really WANT TO or even CAN watch a movie with the understanding of a psychiatrist or novice psychologist.

But who wants to??? It's really too much work.

I also note - there are very few scenes of reality. Mostly just Beau's flashbacks as a kid. A much better movie would have been to juxtapose more scenes of reality with how Beau sees everything in his disconnected, hallucinating, non-reality of strange events, & thoughts and imaginations all influenced by paranoia & distrust, wrong meds.

That would be real insight to the world of paranoid schizophrenia.

As for going into the head of the mentally disturbed this deeply - it's probably a 7 star portrayal. But with very little juxtaposition to reality, it leaves us as clueless, wandering, & grasping as Beau.

And do I need to be in Beaus head for THREE hours? No.

As for so many complaining about an 'unresolved' ending - well, it was totally resolved: Beau tried to choke his mom, she, in her glorious drama as the shocked martyr-victim, seems to have had a heart attack, fell, & died.

Beau wanders down to the water (a theme throughout the movie), feeling some grandiose peace (the starry-sky boat scene) but soon the guilt his mother has 'bathed' him in his whole life - returns - as a hallucination of a harsh 'court'.

Beaus emotions are shaking, erupting - the defense is weak (illustrating Beau's defenses are weak against his mother's overwhelming, overblown, accusations spoken thru her oracle ( a voice we heard earlier in the movie - likely another paid flying monkey)

Beau finally 'explodes'.

(commits suicide) (by drowning).

3 stars for great portrayal of mental illness. But I should subtract them for the grueling run time . . .

I thought I reviewed this when I first saw it. I just watched it again & remembered - the reason I don't review it earlier is bc I wanted to wait to watch with CAPTIONS - so I got the DVD and it's much more interesting knowing what's being said.

I never read the book. But I actually liked the movie as far as the world & premise it takes you into. So I'm reviewing this just simply as a viewer of a movie story.

As movie lovers, we enjoy movies that DRAW US INTO a story.

It COULD HAVE been great, but this movie had too many issues that not only took me OUT of the movie, they seem to force me out.

First issue; Dialogue matters. Regardless of the story or length of a movie, dialogue is is a huge part of understanding the story & therefore being drawn into it.

With Dune, you will constantly be trying to discern dialogue unless you watch it with captions.

The biggest issue is the overall vagueness of everything that's happening;

WHY does the director seem to assume everyone has read the book AND/or seen the other film, and is already familiar with this story????

That just ticks me off.

I spent a bit of time pausing the movie and looking up answers to many questions about why/who/what was happening on the screen.

Of course that was helpful - but should it be that bloody vague?????

I don't think I should have to do extensive research on a movie to be able to 'get into it' & enjoy it.

Well, just how vague is it???

THERE'S A GLOSSARY available.

People knew it was SO vague as to have provided you a glossary of terms to help you fig'er it out. THAT'S how vague it is.

So why did the director allow so much vagueness?? . . . It really comes across like their pretending this movie is exclusive to a certain group, when in reality, it's utterly too vague for every single person regardless of whether they are familiar with the story. (bc of course according to the readers, it doesn't follow the book well)

And when I see a high movie rating, here 8 stars, I like to read a few bad reviews. Just for balance and some middle star reviews.

I find 4 to 6 star reviews are the most 'level', realistic, objective thoughts. 10 star reviews almost always seem overly & ridiculously adoring & vapid, while 1 & 2 star reviews are almost always infantile. Both extremes will have an exception or two where their extreme rating is actually lucidly explained.

In this case, (a very high rated movie) I went to the lower ratings. I never even made it to the middle ratings.

There are an insane number of 1 & 2 star reviews for Dune. Almost every title includes the word 'boring'. This is a brainless way of saying 'vague'.

It is impossible to read them all. I finally just swiftly scrolled thru so many 1 & 2 star reviews it still took like 5 minutes and I quit before I ever even saw 3 stars.

Finally, my recommendation?

As far as the actual story - if you like sci-fi, different worlds, and the often paradoxical operations that are portrayed in those worlds you'll probably enjoy Dune - however . . .

Whether or not you go in familiar with the story, the book, or the previous movie, and especially if you're not familiar at all - I suggest you watch it with captions on, & you'll likely need to keep your finger on the volume. Also read the plot (like on Wikipedia) and if you google that Dune glossary it's very helpful.

But . . . Do ya really wanna work THAT hard to watch a movie? 😕🙄👎

Allittlelateto the show here - But a few observations:

First, I'm a novice Shakespeare fan - read several books in my teens. Limited to movies in these days. Like some of his stuff, hate some of it.

Second observation - sometimes I like to read a few 1 star reviews. Ever notice how people who absolutely abhor a movie elaborate on it in lengthy reviews?

Anyway - most of the few I bothered to read were up-in-atms about the title vs the actual story portrayed. Apparently they all missed the short scene where a young fellow comes to William and asks about writing. Wills line here usesthe title of the movie - in essence, paraphrasing, he tells the young man, 'If you write what you know and feel, then all is true.' So I believe the title reflects that philosophical ideology - why then so cut-&-dried would any viewer assume 'this whole movie story is supposed to true.' ...?

Thirdly, I enjoyed the movie overall and caught much more humour than hard-core Shakespeareans claimed and musr have missed, but I also agree it was a bit more dramatic than expected.

Another observation - I too agreed Dame Judy seemed too old to play the wife - but since most of the characters ages are askew - so what? (I think it came across like a stage play filmed) I think the film cast is cream-of-the-crop adored. So whatever.

I also think it's helpful being a novice, bc I could simply enjoy a movie without influence.

So that may sound 'unlearned' & stupid to some, but think of the many young people who might watch this and simply be inspired to explore more Shakespeare.

Finally, did anyone else think Branaugh looked like Ben Kingsley? 😅

Here is an example of a movie that is showing the evasive ambiguity of a human being. And dragged out to length with vague images . . .

The character (Tar) is (apparently) some sort of predator, possibly narcissist, pretentious & condescending, delicately evasive, displays 'entitled' detachment. But we also see other sides of her, seemingly considerate partner, quite good with her daughter, skilled at music and teaching, sense of humor, high achievements.

She weilds her position & fame together - apparently to maintain it as well as revel in the submission & 'dire respect' of every person in her realm.

That is until almost everyone, one by one, then in groups, finally realize how fickle she is.

And we finally discover she's from a very humble background, has excelled, yet has elaborated a fake persona, and in the end, all her spinning plates fall, and she gets taken down to the very bottom of the proverbial ladder.

I thought the very end was rather comical given her achievements combined with the high brow persona she constructed both thru legitimate education & as a result of achieved fame. We realize, by the end tho, her achievements would have meant much, much more if she had embraced her true self & background rather than changed it.

In fact, unless you're at least somewhat familiar with academic psychology and understand to some degree the dynamics of low self-esteem and resulting behavioural patterns, you will be totally bored with this movie. And you may even be bored with it if you are a psychology major . . .

But I barely deciphered any of the movie story or elements by watching the movie. The movie plays exactly like a dream; disjointed, illogical, snippets of images or events . . . As if you're a fly on the wall yes, - but one that comes and goes.

I had to do some plot reading to nail down one thing: This fictional movie portrays the same vague, questioning, ambiguity that the general public & investigative commitees in reality have over any scandal.

I reckon that was what the directors goal - with only the addition of us being able to see her nightmares, 'hallucinations' & hearing sounds. (these all suggest schizophrenia)

All these story elements given to the viewer in Tar's private moments on screen - that in reality the public or a committee would never see; the nightmares, abusing young girls, sounds, or whatever scenes were supposed to be 'hallucinations' - were all so extremely vague & inexplicit as to simply leave me frustrated.

Again - maybe that's the exact point . . . ?

I did register expressions of distaste from her partner over Tars decisions, glances, & comments towards certain women.

Tars assistant shows expressions implied of utter respect & admiration as well as utter resignation & hopelessness. Other characters revealing expressions; - the conversation with the releasing of the assistant conductor began with polite conversation which Tar escalated into hatefulness, the deserving cellist overlooked/replaced, the condescension Tar engaged in towards the male orchestra leader (Mark Strongs character who remained admiring, respectful & rather desperately so) and who Tar ultimately attacked in a public display of raging jealously, etc.

But overall, we as the viewer are given very, very little of what really ever actually happened other than the blacklisted girl who commits suicide. Yet I keep going back to the (only possible) point of the movie;

The inner working mind of any person is a complete mystery to every one else. All we can do is watch their actual actions play out AND/OR view them thru hearsay or media and try to piece together some kind of truth.

The bottom line is - do I really wanna deal with that level of ambiguity in a fictional movie???

No. And I avoid it in reality as well.

There's an avalanche of reality investigative programs, actual biographies, actual local, national, and world news to provide all the ambiguous stories one can possibley endure from crime to politics, wars, sports, and entertainment.

For a movie, I don't mind a little open-ended ideology or tossing good conversational questions. I mean everything in every movie doesn't have to conclude in a neat little package, and 'The End'.

Sure, I like to engage in 'what if' and story imagination 'before & after' what's presented on the screen.

But I do tend to prefer to check out from a lot of the ambiguities of reality, get engaged in a story and have at least a few things made clear. And pretty often these sort of psychological films just aren't going to do that, bc the disturbed human mind is so evasive . . .

Finally, I expect the long running time of this movie exists in order to try to insert as many of these ambiguous elements as possible in an attempt to portray how a self-aggrandized cookie crumbles.

But in fact, it could'a been done with more concrete story images in a standard length film.