Reviews

The story of the emergence of the Ford Race Team.

Mixed in are subtexts involving multi-generational conflict within Ford Motor Company, racing physics, and automotive history. This is a fascinating film that exceeded my expectations. Kudos to the producers - I'm sure this was a difficult film to create, but it was worth the money and effort.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Cinematography: +1 (This is one of the best-filmed car movies ever made - good use of technology to capture previously uncreatable moments on film.);

Believability/Consistency: +1;

Total RealReview Rating: 7.

The story of the 'Silk Road' darkweb commerce site is better told through documentary programming. This movie lacks soul, and contains nothing memorable beyond the true story on which it is based.

For further viewing, see "Silk Road: Drugs, Death, & The Dark Web" (2017).

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -): none. Although I could have deducted points for poor post-production standards, I will choose to view the unorthodox opening as a stylistic choice, rather than an oversight.

Total RealReview Rating: 5.

When every performance is great, can any performance really "stand out"? Has Leonardo DiCaprio ever had a bad performance? Or, even an average performance?

This movie was long, but needed to be longer. I hadn't seen this since the mid-2000's, and was surprised that the story abruptly ends at mid-life. Hughes' life had many more interesting stories left to tell, but it seems that Scorsese wanted to end the film on a positive note.

This is a fine film - with a big budget, a great cast, and great camera work.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Cinematography: +1 (Scorsese probably used as many cameras to film the dog fight scenes as Hughes used.);

Ensemble Cast: +1;

Total RealReview Rating: 7.

Young cousins go away to summer camp, where a killer is on the loose. Another 1980's summer camp horror movie with a twist ending.

This is one of those movies that is hard to discuss without spoilers, because the entire value of the project is in the plot resolution of the final scene. It's not fun to watch for 90 minutes - filled with bad acting and a lot of the same subplots and scenes as all of the other 'summer camp themed' horror movies. Also, there is no female nudity. None. Keep in mind, there is a shower scene - but no nudity. So, this is not much fun to watch. But, is it worth watching? Yeah, probably. The ending might be one of the best in 1980's horror.

Despite the great ending, I won't watch this version again. I might look for an uncut version or a director's cut. I'm sure that any decent version of this film would have carried an 'NC-17' or an 'X' rating. If you choose to watch 'Summer Camp' (1983), you will probably agree.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 0.5/1;

Casting: 0.5/1;

Directing: 0.5/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 0.5/1;

Total Base Score = 3

Modifiers (+ or -):

Originality: +0.5 (What seems like another cliche 1980's horror film turns out to be something different... You just have to wait 90 minutes for it to be revealed.);

Standout Performances: -0.5 ( Karen Fields was awful. Much of the cast is awful, but this was a large role and she was particularly bad.);

Gratuitous Female Nudity: 0 (Throughout this film, I was outraged that there was no female nudity. However, when considering the final scene, it makes a little more sense. In order to get an "R" rating (and to be allowed to show the final scene), they were probably told to remove all female nudity from the movie. It's a shame, because a sexy scene with Meg in the shower would have made this a better movie.);

Total RealReview Rating: 3.

The Pope sends Russell Crowe on adventures as an exorcist.

This is a strange film. I have seen many exorcist-themed horror films, and most are rather 'blah'. This film is not 'blah'. I'm not used to seeing a cliche horror film with a real budget - but, I suppose this isn't a generic, cliche horror film. I remember being surprised that Vera Farmiga was starring in 'The Conjuring' series, but I was shocked that Russell Crowe was making this film. The horror movie model is profitable because there is little up-front investment. However, this film hired a real lead actor, had a real cast with some depth, and was filmed in a few different locations - there was a $20 million investment to create an outstanding horror movie experience.

The efforts were successful - this is a good film that will have you on the edge of your seat. The ending suggests that this might be a series (like 'The Conjuring' was created into a thematic series), so long as they can keep Russell Crowe interested. Either way, 'The Pope's Exorcist' (2023) is among the best of the many exorcist-themed horror films.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Music Score/Soundtrack: + 0.5 (A horror movie with a real soundtrack. The music is largely unnecessary and inappropriate, but it's impressive that they spent some money on real music.);

Believability/Consistency: +0.5 (An interesting take on Catholic politics, interwoven into a horror movie. I'm not sure where to award points for that. Again, a strange film.);

Total RealReview Rating: 6.

A lesbian artist struggles with her Jewish girlfriend's mental issues and over-involved and mother.

I counted 4 languages, so nearly everyone that watches will need subtitles. The pacing is slowwwwwww. Almost too slow. But, once the actual plot is finally revealed, it is an engaging movie. No great film ever made you wait an hour to explain what you were watching, so the pacing definitely diminishes the film.

It could have been a little sexier. There were a couple of very hot & realistic sex scenes that both stopped abruptly. Not cool. But, there are many scenes of Josephine Park in her panties. The reason we put sex scenes and gratuitous nudity into these type of films is so that they "stand out". Again, this is a fine film - but it wasn't courageous enough to contain anything "outstanding".

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -): none.

Total RealReview Rating: 5.

Climate change causes the earth to reject humanity. An amazing psychological thriller/horror film.

Why the bad reviews? Because republican sheep (the same sheep that have basements full of expired pre-packaged meals for "the end times") give bad reviews to any film project that expects them to think and to be accountable. Rush Limbaugh didn't like this movie, so middle-American talk-radio listeners don't like it, either. Therefore, an otherwise entertaining movie has to be "liberal propaganda" - simply because it operates on a scientific premise. (In case some of you didn't finish your 8th grade science textbook, I will fill you in on how it ends - Science doesn't vote, so it isn't conservative or liberal... it's just science.)

This might qualify as a 'Family Friendly Horror' (if such a category can exist). This is an original concept, executed in a believable way. And, like many of the best film experiences, 'The Happening' (2008) will spark thought and conversation after watching.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Originality: +1;

Believability/Consistency: +1;

Total RealReview Rating: 7.

This project was released 16 years ago, and I am the first person to ever review it here on IMDB.

I feel bad writing really negative movie reviews. I mean, no one begins a film project like this, intending to fail so miserably. But, I was thinkin'... maybe the purpose wasn't actually to make a sexy and believable soft-core film...

I've lived and worked in Hollywood. I have studied film. I also have a degree in Psychology. I think I have a pretty good idea as to why 'Shameless Desire' (2007) was created, and why it turned out so bad.

(Disclaimer: of course, everything I am about to write is purely hypothetical and satiristic...)

I think someone wanted to "get close" to one of those actresses. I think that person had some money, and I think you can probably find their name somewhere in the credits. I think this 'mystery investor/producer' commissioned a cheap, yet legitimate script. I think older actors (and possibly desperate actors) were intentionally chosen to prevent too much actual chemistry on the set. I think some of the male actors and production staff were friends of this investor, and probably felt indebted for being given the opportunity to be included in this awful project. Whichever actress was the 'object of infatuation' was probably featured in multiple sex scenes, and probably has a prominent speaking role in the project. In the original script, she was probably written to have one sex scene, but as production continued, the investor would have the script edited to add more sex scenes and nudity that featured their favorite actress. Those particular sex scenes were probably over-directed, because the actual purpose was not to capture great acting, but to gauge how much of her sexuality this actress was willing to trade for this role and paycheck.

So, in a situation like this, we are left to wonder... when production was completed and everyone moved on with their lives, did that investor ultimately get what they wanted?

This is a terrible movie, but it may have turned out to be everything that it was originally intended to be.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 0/1; ( Yes, 0. The dialog was unnatural, and most of the sex looked fake. Seriously, you can't fake sex better than this?);

Casting: 0/1; (None of these people can act, and I question whether some can read. Visually, the women are attractive, but most seemed a little older than early 20's grad-school students. The men, however, were all in their mid-30's to late 40's. Since acting ability wasn't a prerequisite, the least they could have done was cast age-appropriate bad actors. Take a look at the credits - full of pseudonyms and fake names. This movie is a joke.);

Directing: 0/1; (A note to all directors of sex scenes: If a man is attempting to provide oral pleasure to a woman, there cannot be 11 inches of space and light between the man's face and the woman's body. This was an issue in multiple scenes. Also, the order with which the fake sexual positions were performed was often the same. Simply terrible directing... Take your camera, your awful acting crew, and your "Go-Go-Gadget" tongue fetish, and get the **** off my television screen.);

Story: 0.5/1; (They tried to tell a story that would tie the scenes together. I appreciate the effort.);

Writing/Screenplay: 0.5/1;

Total Base Score = 1

Modifiers (+ or -):

Standout Performances: -6 or so... Ok, that's not fair... -1, I guess. (They all stand out. Each one we encounter seems a little worse than the previous.);

Believability/Consistency: -1 (No.);

Quotability: +1 (Yes, it is quotable, in that way that really bad movies are always quotable. This movie is so bad that it might be fun in a party or 'group-viewing' situation. However, It would need to be a very open-minded group of people, and would probably require a lot of alcohol.);

Extraordinary Actor Chemistry: 0 (It's amazing how there can be so little sexual chemistry in a movie with so much fake sex.);

Gratuitous Female Nudity: +1

Exceptionally Sexy: +0.5 (There was a ton of nudity, but it was so poorly acted and filmed that it doesn't feel very sexy.);

Distractingly Poor Editing: -0.5 (Again, the space between the actors in intimate scenes. Also, bad and loud music and some cheesy digital post-production effects.);

Editing-Too Long: -0.5 (Should have been cut to about an hour.);

Total RealReview Rating: 0.5 (generously rounded up to 1 for IMDB)

Ty Cobb's biographer was a drunk who took the job writing the story as an assignment, not a passion. Cobb obviously didn't think much of him.

As for Cobb's autobiographical tale, he says he was a defender of honor and of baseball. He claims he was a victim of professional jealousy.

This movie chose to present Cobb as a violent drunk that was despised by baseball. But, if the point was to present Cobb as a despicable character, they could have done worse. The fact is, there are many terrible tales about Cobb - most written in newspapers at the time. The biography that this movie was based on presents Cobb in a much more negative light. So why didn't they "go all the way" and tell ALL of the terrible stories and ALL of the terrible details?

This movie (in particular, the writers and producers) had no backbone; the resulting script is one-sided and watered-down. For what it's worth, Cobb's autobiography is a good read, with many details of his life after baseball that were left out of this movie. The real truth about Cobb is probably like the truth about most other people - a complicated mix of the good and the bad that results in a complex character. Unfortunately, this movie fell short of a complete portrait of Cobb, because they didn't try to present a complete portrait.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 0/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 0.5/1;

Total Base Score = 3.5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Standout Performances: +0.5 ( Tommy Lee Jones. Although a very negative portrayal, it was an impressive performance.);

Total RealReview Rating: 4.

Renee Zellweger as Judy Garland - this is one of the greatest acting performances I have ever seen. I don't like musicals, but you don't need to be a Judy Garland fan to enjoy this film. I was 20 minutes into the film before I pulled up the cast list and realized that Renee Zellweger was playing the lead role. Everything about Zellweger transformed into another person - her posture when standing, the way she walked, her hair, the insecurity behind her eyes when dealing with the world, the smoking, the lack of sexuality, and the singing...

Although there was plenty of overdubbing and post-production on the vocals, there were also moments where Renee Zellweger was singing. Zellweger trained for the singing in this role - she didn't have to, but she chose to train. In the best of these scenes, it wasn't really Renee Zellweger that was singing - it was a mixture of a little bit of Renee and a whole lot of Judy.

I've never used this cliche before, but Renee Zellweger was born to play this role. Previous roles may have grossed more box-office money, but this was the greatest performance of her career.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Cinematography: +0.5 (The opening scene in the barn set and walking out onto the Yellow Brick Road was brilliant filmmaking, and it set a high standard. Unfortunately, this was the most impressive camera work of the film - but, they came out of the gate swinging!);

Standout Performances: +1 ( Renee Zellweger. In the decades to come, when career retrospectives are being discussed, the film community may decide that this performance in 'Judy' (2019) was one of the most authentic acting performances in filmmaking history.);

Total RealReview Rating: 6.5 (rounded up to 7 for IMDB)

I'm a fan of documentaries. Often times, when watching a well-made documentary, I find myself wishing it would be made into a big-budget movie.

'Mank' (2020) is a fine film with a great cast, but is lacking in telling a comprehensive story of the creation of 'Citizen Kane' (1941). Ideally, this would have been a docu-series with an underlying historical reenactment film.

There is a lot going on in this film. In order to truly understand this story, you need to have a working knowledge of the political environment at the time, as well as the 'studio system' of producing films back then. Also, this film has A LOT of characters - most of which are, presumably, real people. A docu-series could have added depth to these characters and made their individual stories more impactful.

A docu-series could have contained 100% of this film, plus more scenes that would be needed to depict the added depth that the interview segments could provide to the setting and the characters.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Standout Performances: +1 ( Amanda Seyfried );

Total RealReview Rating: 6.

Keri Russell has been waiting her entire career for this moment.

In her twenties, she knew that her Golden Globe Award for 'Felicity' (1999) was nothing more than a stepping stone toward the ultimate, much larger project.

In her late thirties, she hoped that her three Primetime Emmy Nominations for 'The Americans' (2013) would grant her consideration for the role that might define her career.

And, now, in her mid-forties, she has finally reached the pinnacle of her career... being chased around with some child actors by a poorly animated bear that is high on cocaine.

This is a fun movie... if you aren't wigged out by too much coke... or, by a bear occasionally ripping people apart.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -): none.

Total RealReview Rating: 5.

This is a special film. It's hard to put into words, or to add a numeric value to represent the quality.

The unhealthy chemistry of resentment, spite, and enduring love... so complicated and confusing and painful.

I've never seen a film so accurately represent the end of a long and loving relationship. It was too accurate. I found myself shouting at the screen during multiple scenes. I also cried during multiple scenes. Scarlett Johansson actually says some of the words that "the love of my life" said to me, as she walked away from our relationship. I guess these are just things people say, when they find themselves in the unusual position of abandoning their life and their long-term partner.

It is a beautiful creation - this depiction of such ugliness. I will never be able to watch it again.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Originality: +0.5 ( Although there have been countless plots depicting the end of a marriage, none have translated on film quite like this one.);

Believability/Consistency: +1 (There may never have been a more believable film.);

Extraordinary Actor Chemistry: +1 ( Adam Driver & Scarlett Johansson );

Total RealReview Rating: 7.5 (rounded up to 8 for IMDB.)

Oh, the ratings & reviews on IMDB of 'African Queen' (1951)... the ratings are so artificially inflated... some of the written reviews are utter poppycock...

When you watch this film in the 2020's, it's obviously not as good as these reviewers are claiming. But, all of those inflated ratings aren't really for THIS movie, so much as they are a statement about cultural standards. I'm going to write a review of 'African Queen' (1951) - but first, I'm going to review a particular group that I like to call 'The Olds'.

Let's start by establishing a premise - this is IMDB, not OMDB. If some of the "users of advanced age" would like to create an "Old Movie DataBase", I encourage it! But, this is a comprehensive database of ALL movies. So, if you want to "flex your old" in a movie review, try to remember that you are comparing it to every other movie ever made.

Now that we have established where we are, let's talk about 'The Olds' of IMDB. 'The Olds' have never seen a black and white movie that they haven't loved. 'The Olds' gave up on modern entertainment years ago, and refuse to acknowledge advances in filmmaking and changes in societal tastes.

Now, hold on - before I am accused of agism... you don't have to be of any particular age to be a member - there are plenty of pretentious 30 and 40-somethings that are just as close-minded and resentful of cultural progress. These 'Olds' write reviews of African Queen' (1951), giving it 8, 9, or 10 stars, and write statements like, "Katharine Hepburn is generally considered to be the greatest actress in the history of film" (an actual ******* quote from a review with 86 likes on IMDB). These 'Olds' irrationally skew the ratings higher than they should be, which diminishes the value that legitimate reviewers give to other, better films. Watching a movie as a child does not make it a good movie. Being comfortable with the race of the actors does not make a good movie. Feeling nostalgic for something doesn't mean it has relative quality. Just because a younger version of you liked a movie, doesn't mean THIS version of you SHOULD like the movie - BECAUSE HUMANS BEINGS ARE MEANT TO EVOLVE AS PEOPLE THROUGHOUT LIFE. And, choosing to like a movie and to indulge in nostalgia does not give you the right to devalue the next 70 years of culture with stupid scores and ignorant comments.

'African Queen' (1951), considering a qualitative analysis of content, was not a great movie when it was released. Neither Bogart nor Katherine Hepburn were (are) objectively attractive, and cannot hold interest as the only actors in a film. Bogart was great, but the role was terribly written. To play the role as written, Bogart's acting often looks foolish and amateurish. The location and nature footage probably looked great in 1951, but is obviously spliced in from separate film crews at separate locations (or, is possibly purchased stock footage that had nothing to do with the actual production). The issue with the location footage brings to light the biggest problem with the film - it is obviously dated. This film does not meet current social standards in depicting acceptable behavior, nor does this film meet modern standards for film quality. The dialog is terrible, the actors have no on-screen chemistry, and the story drags on and on. Hepburn is unlikable and watching this movie is torturous in the 2020's.

In summation, I have no problem with people getting old in age - I plan to do it myself, someday. But, 'Old' is also a state of mind. An individual that benefits from modern society should be embarrassed to publicly reject cultural advancements, in favor of obviously inferior childhood nostalgia. Oh yeah, and 'African Queen' (1951) is a terrible movie.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 0.5/1 (He gyrated like a monkey. I was half-waiting for him to pull out his banana and make a mess on her face. #DirtyMonkeyBusiness );

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 0.5/1 (There had to be something they could have done to have made Hepburn appear a little more attractive and Bogart appear a little less ridiculous.);

Story: 1/1 (I mean, I guess this was a good story... Was it? I don't really know. The rest of this production was so inferior that no story would have translated well, on-screen.);

Writing/Screenplay: 0.5/1 (Half a point is being generous.);

Total Base Score = 3.5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Standout Performances: -1 ( Katharine Hepburn was outstandingly unlikable and unattractive. Also, she sounds like a dude.);

Distractingly Poor Editing: -0.5 (Yes, it's old - but, no excuses! The great Dusty Rhodes used to say, "Don't do **** you don't know how to do!" And, then he would repeat it. There is a lesson in that statement for everyone.);

Total RealReview Rating: 2 (a very generous 2, in my opinion.)

Elvis as an 18 year old hustler and singer, dropping out of school and getting involved with organised crime in the French Quarter. This film is dark and gritty, and Elvis plays the lead role well. The songs are mostly appropriate and the supporting cast is impressive. The two co-leading ladies were beautiful and famous actresses. The location shooting in New Orleans gives the film historic and cultural relevance, as well. There is a lot to like in this film.

If this had been Elvis Presley's only film, then history would have a very different opinion of his acting abilities and potential. And, if Elvis's other 30 motion pictures would have had as high quality of scripts, songs, and casts as 'King Creole' (1958), then the histories of musicals and of 1960's film would have been very different.

You don't need to be an Elvis fan to enjoy this movie - fans of 'film noir' will appreciate the tone and the directing, and fans of classic film and television will love the supporting cast. Regardless of your opinion of old movies or Elvis Presley's music, quality is quality, and this is a really good film.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Authentic Location Shooting: +1 ( 1950's New Orleans is a rare site in film.);

Standout Performances: +1 ( Elvis Presley . Not only is this his best work, but it is very good acting. Although the supporting cast are Hollywood stars, Elvis carries this film.);

Music Score/Soundtrack: +0.5 (They should have cut the school anthem, and they should have replaced the song from the shoplifting scene with one from later in the film. However, because the script was re-written for a singer, the majority of the soundtrack adds to the film. Also, it's good music.);

Ensemble Cast: +0.5 (This is an impressive cast - even without Elvis.);

Editing-Too Long: -1 (Cutting those 2 aforementioned songs (and the accompanying scene for the later) would have saved 8-9 minutes. Trimming a little here and a little there would have helped improve the pacing.);

Total RealReview Rating: 7.

This is a unique story with an unexpectedly powerful performance by Jake Gyllenhaal. A serial killing tabloid reporter that talks like a self-help guru goes on adventures in Los Angeles.

You always remember the first time you see a really good movie.

The first time I saw this film was in a hotel room in Flagstaff, Arizona in May of 2016. I watched late at night while my gf and my dog slept beside me. I played with all of the toys that I have accumulated on the trip, and watched this movie, and took a break in the middle to go outside to the jacuzzi gazebo and smoke a bowl in the snow flurries. While the steam rose off the heated water and the snowflakes glowed in the lights of the hotel, I thought about how happy I was at that moment, and how thankful I was for that girl, and that dog, and the little family we had created. Then, I went back inside to finish the movie. On my way back to the room, I took a photo of the geometric shapes in the hotel hallway. I posted the photo to Instagram. We left Flagstaff the next day, and continued on our journey.

I'm so glad that I watched this film while on that trip, and got to re-live those memories while I watched it again for this review. Because, people change, and pets pass away, and relationships end, and the years go by... but, I'll never stop missing that girl, and that dog, and that little family.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Originality: +1

Standout Performances: +1 ( Jake Gyllenhaal );

Total RealReview Rating: 7.

I've written hundreds of these reviews over the last 4 years. I strive to be objective when I start watching a film for review - even if I have seen it before and have previously had a strong opinion. My honest expectations for my first viewing of 'Citizen Kane' (1941) was that it would be a fine film, but not "The Greatest Film Of All TIme!!!", and I didn't expect it to hold up to 2023 acting and production standards. 'Citizen Kane' may be the most hyped film of all time; as the years pass and film standards progress over time, it becomes harder to live up to that kind of hype. If I would have guessed a star rating, I would have probably expected a 7.

'Citizen Kane' (1941) is the best 'old movie' I have ever seen. The issues Charles deals with in life are timeless, and the present-day viewer will quickly forget that this film was created over 80 years ago. The corruption of journalistic integrity, socio-economic differences, wealth and power, aging, divorce... These issues are presented here on film with amazing directing - using the best of the Hitchcock-era camera and music tricks to create mood, while using 21st-century sit-down documentary interviewing techniques to establish character histories. Orson Wells is outstanding, and ages 40 years in 90 minutes of film. Contrary to the slowly-paced movie-making style of the era, 'Citizen Kane' moves with a rapid pace; a pace almost too rapid, that causes a subtle anxiety in the viewer. In a revolutionary storytelling and directing technique, we see the entirety of Charles' first marriage, told through a chronological montage of several breakfasts that the couple shared over a decade. So many reviews have already been written on 'Citizen Kane', that to say much further seems redundant.

Those that have read my reviewer profile or any of my previous film reviews know that I attempt to both qualify and quantify the quality of a film, using a standardized set of possible filmmaking criteria. This film is superior to nearly every other film I have rated, in nearly every aspect that I look for when rating a film.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Originality: +1 (So many aspects of this movie are unique - even by modern standards. Unorthodox filming techniques, extreme lighting techniques, unusual screenwriting style, incredible make-up and 'aging' effects... the combination of so many groundbreaking production aspects makes this a different type of film.);

Cinematography: +1 (The odd above and below shots, always stationary and at a strange angle, give those scenes a voyeuristic feel. A particularly impactful example is the scene from inside the broken snow-globe, early in the film.);

Standout Performances: +1 ( Orson Wells . I was amazed at how he appeared to age 45 years throughout the film, using 1940's technology and great acting.);

Technical Effects/Make Up: +1 ( Wells claimed they used some type of fish byproduct to "lift" his face for scenes early in the film.);

Importance To Genre/Cultural Significance: +1 or more (This film is considered the best film of the 1940's, and is also considered to be one of the greatest films ever made.);

Total RealReview Rating: 10.

In previous reviews of Woody Allen films, I have pointed out Woody's tendency to "crowbar" himself into a film, usually with a philosophic character that tries to guide the viewer through a certain train of thought. In 'Crimes & Misdemeanors' (1989), Woody crowbars an entire storyline for himself into the film, creating two parallel and largely disconnected stories. The result is a sub-par Woody Allen film.

In one story, a philandering doctor must decide how much of a price he is willing to pay to maintain his "normal life", reputation, and social standing. This story is dark and pessimistic, and the scenes contain no humor. Martin Landau is an unlikeable character.

In the second story, a struggling documentarian (Woody) and a successful TV comedy producer (Alan Alda) compete for the affections of the same woman (Mia Farrow). This story is mostly sarcastic and pessimistic, with moments of humor. The screenplay is written in a way that the audience is expected to root for Woody. However, Woody's character is just as unlikable as Alan Alda's. Woody is cheating on his wife and talking trash about his friends and family throughout the entire film.

So, for most of this film, we are watching unlikable characters. By the end of the film, Mia Farrow is unlikable, as well.

The film really isn't that long, but it feels long - like being stuck at a party with a bunch of unlikable people.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 0.5/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 0.5/1;

Total Base Score = 4

Modifiers (+ or -): None

Total RealReview Rating: 4.

The first hour of this film has some of the best comedy of the 2000's. For the rest of my life I will be quoting this film, as I have been quoting it for almost 20 years now.

There is an abrupt point where the comedy lessens and the vibe changes. The writers and film-snobs might claim that the tone shifted to advance and resolve the plot. However, that is a nonsense argument. It's hard to keep the laughs rolling for 90 straight minutes. Many great comedies hit a lull when trying to resolve the love story or tie everything together towards the end. 'Happy Gilmore' (1996) is one of the funniest movies of all time, but the last half of the movie can feel like a hangover. Despite settling down, the ending was strong. This is a timeless comedy, and everyone that watches will find something to laugh about.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Standout Performances: +1 (20 years later, Ron Burgundy is considered an iconic character.);

Ensemble Cast: +0.5 (Although not all of these actors were considered "A-List Movie Stars", 'Anchorman' (2004) contains some of the best comedic actors of the decade, including Steve Carell, Vince Vaughn, and Ben Stiller.);

Quotability: +1 ("I don't know if you're aware, but... I'm kind of a big deal... People know me... I have many leather-bound books... My apartment smells of rich mahogany." Some might say this is one of the most quotable comedies of all time.);

Cultural Significance: +0, for now. (In the future, I may need to give this movie +1 for being a classic that influenced culture.)

Total RealReview Rating: 7.5 (rounded up to 8 for IMDB)

This is a bad movie.

If you are reading this review before watching this film, you have already wasted too much time on 'Wet Hot American Summer' (2001). I won't waste more of your time by writing much here. This was written to be clever and ironic - faking nostalgia for the masses while poking fun at 1980's culture in a way that intellectuals would understand and appreciate. Unfortunately, the final product failed at everything except being a bad movie - it is not clever, not funny, and the overall tone doesn't hold up in 2023.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 0.5/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 0.5/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 0.5/1;

Total Base Score = 3.5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Detrimentally Prudish Directing: -1 (Stupid campy movie with no female nudity loses points.);

Comedy-Childish Inane Humor: -1 (Pick a lane, bro - are you 'highbrow ironic humour" or are you catering to pothead 20-somethings?);

Total RealReview Rating: 1.5 (rounded up to 2 for IMDB)

Sometimes, a screenplay is so good that it feels like you can cast anybody, anywhere, and it will be a success. "Give me any actor with a pulse, and this movie will be a hit!" Well, this movie wasn't exactly a hit - it cost $10 million to make and grossed about $38 in the box office. But, Woody knew that 'Another Woman' (1988) was some very special writing. His choices for the cast were unattractive actors and actresses ('Objectively Unattractive'. This is a movie review - visuals matter). These actors were able to give great performances without stealing focus from the plotlines and emotional issues at hand. Also, the older and very "average" look of these men and women is relatable to a larger audience. Woody downplayed the setting and location (New Jersey) - which is usually featured prominently in his films.

So, without college girls, low-cut dresses, New York citiscapes, or dashing sex-symbols, we are left with the issues these characters need to consider in the film... aging, career vs motherhood, age differences in relationships, sex, pregnancy, abortion, infidelity, privilege, sibling resentment, jealousy, the meaning of friendship, the purpose of social circles, the meaning of seduction, shame...

Woody Allen often has much to say in his films. In all of his previous work, a film with this much philosophic content would include a comical character, portrayed by Woody Allen, to wax-philosophic at the audience. Not this time. In 'Another Woman' (1988), Woody resisted the urge to "lighten the mood" with comedic lines or interludes, and finally stifled his need to be the philosophic voice of his film.

The result is an awe-inspiring screenplay and film, with average actors in an average setting creating extraordinary film content.

The ending is less than perfect, and not really an ending, at all. But, in this particular film, that's ok - life is like that, sometimes.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Believability/Consistency: +1;

Extraordinary Actor Chemistry: +1 (There is a stiffness to some of this acting that would bother me in other films, but presents here as realism. Some of those awkward scenes actually enhance the film.);

Total RealReview Rating: 7.

This is not a fun movie. I feel like Woody might have been grumpy or particularly pessimistic when he wrote this film. Jason Biggs' character is weak throughout the entire film, to the point that he is hard to watch. Christina Ricci's character is disloyal and cruel. Because the characters lack any depth, the writing becomes predictable.

Like a few other of his less-inspired projects, Woody felt the need to awkwardly crowbar a character for himself into this film. The age difference between Woody and Jason Biggs is rather off-putting and Woody seems out of place. Although Woody had insightful things to say, the film would have been more focused had a couple of those lines been given to another role, and the David character been removed completely.

I won't watch this again.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 0.5/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 0.5/1;

Total Base Score = 4

Modifiers (+ or -): None.

Total RealReview Rating: 4.

In 2023, we live in an era where producers are trying to find ways to get the public to return to theaters. 'Plane' (2023) takes some impressive special effects technology, a big-named actor, and a mess of movie-making cliches... puts them all into a big blender... and spits out 90 minutes of entertainment. This film was made for "The Big Screen" - however, I chose to watch it on my television.

There is nothing original here, but the final product is much better than most modern action films. This is a fun film, but if you told me it was written by AI, I could believe it.

The scenes in the plane live up to expectations, and the rest of the film maintains a fast pace.

'Plane' (2023) proves that you don't need to reinvent the wheel in order to make a good movie - you just need to re-use the old ideas a little bit differently and a little bit better than the last guy.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Originality: -1 (We have seen many plane crash plots, and many themes of americans stranded in hostile territory.);

Technical Effects/Make Up: +1 (The plane and weather effects were realistic and scary. Although we have done most of this before, sometimes technology allows us to do it better.);

Believability/Consistency: +0.5 (Besides surviving two plane crashes, this film tried to depict a certain amount of realism.);

Total RealReview Rating: 5.5 (rounded up to 6 for IMDB.)

"Seriously, what kind of movie is this?!" I was almost shouting, about 30 minutes into the film. It is difficult to write a detailed review of 'The Baby' (1973) without spoilers, so I will keep this review to generalities.

In a 2020's world, where we have a million bad horror movies to choose from, 'The Baby' (1973) stands out as one of the best horror films of the 1970's.

Although nearly forgotten, this film stands the test of time with a unique plot, great acting, and clever writing - filled with surprise twists and swerves. Positive or negative, this movie elicits some type of a strong reaction out of everyone that watches. As the credits roll, audiences are left contemplating and debating the issues raised in the film.

The worst actor in the film was the baby. It was a tough role, and baby noises were over-dubbed in post-production. However, the 4 lead actresses were outstanding.

If you enjoy Hitchcock thrillers, classic horror, or just like watching a good movie, try to find 'The Baby' (1973).

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Originality: +1 (I've never seen a movie quite like this. I can't believe they made this in 1973.);

Total RealReview Rating: 6.

As far as debut films are concerned, this was a great first effort into the action/fighting film genre. Bruce Lee might have the most realistic looking strikes that I've seen on film. There are times when I thought, "He just jacked that guy! There was no choreography there - he just kicked the guy in the face!'" A lot of the film is prelude to the actual plot, and Bruce Lee refuses to fight. The pacing of the film is slow - especially for an action film.

I viewed a 2010 DVD release, with english audio and the subtitles on. For some reason, the english audio and the subtitles are very different, to the point that it changes the motivations of the characters. The english audio presents Cheng as humble and reserved. However, the subtitles sometimes present him as prideful and arrogant. I attempted to research which version was closer to the original script, but I was unable to get a clear answer. Again, I'm assuming this issue will be resolved in later Bruce Lee work.

Bruce Lee has inspired multiple generations of martial arts filmmaking. 'The Big Boss' (1971) might not be perfect, but it's a solid debut.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:

Acting: 1/1;

Casting: 1/1;

Directing: 1/1;

Story: 1/1;

Writing/Screenplay: 1/1;

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers (+ or -):

Believability/Consistency: -0.5 (Most of Bruce Lee's fight scenes and moves look great. But, the finish? Come on, man... It looked like Mortal Kombat - "Finish Him! ....... Bruce Lee ... Wins.");

Music/Soundtrack: +/- 0 (There were moments in the film that were enhanced by eerie mood music. Unfortunately, most of the film is accompanied by terrible and inappropriate music.);

Exceptional Choreography: +1 (Again, I am being generous. Most of the fighting looked more like ballet - including multiple instances of guys fake-flying through the air for a kick. But, because most of the fighting was cheesy, Bruce Lee's work looked great. I'm giving the +1 even though Bruce Lee doesn't start fighting until halfway through the film.);

Total RealReview Rating: 5.5 (rounded up to 6 for IMDB).