Reviews

Season eight drags on quite a bit. Therefore, the episode of the gang getting analyzed was a breath of fresh air. For me personally, delivering the most laughs of all of Season 8 yet. The show's creators should write another episode with the therapist because she was the perfect foil for the gang's insanity.

The gang wants a decision from the therapist on who should do the dishes after sharing a meal together, and chaos ensues. Each one in the gang gets an individual session, revealing more about themselves than they had planned to. Except for maybe Charlie who is an open book. Without giving anything away, I would say that therapist will come to regret her decision to try to help the gang.

Gus has no luck selling his art, due to the fact that he has nothing to sell it with: he is neither homosexual nor crazy, he is not drug-addicted or troubled in any other way (besides being very unsuccessful as an artist). Good luck that there are thieves who turn into very gifted artist representatives, PIs who can fake identities and art critics who still recognize art when they see it. Really?? Besides my biggest question - what is the point of this story - I wonder why anyone would cast Chris Eigeman as a lead character??? He looks like my bookie and has the charisma of my shoe vendor next door. The movie reminds me to never ever watch movies made by NY intellectuals who cannot imagine any kind of normal world but always feel an urge to portray rich, intellectual or artistic people and their non-problems. Please refer to the just as non-appealing movie "Motherhood" (2009, starring Uma Thurman) to know what I mean.

A lot of people might have been allured to see this movie for the huge bundle of superb actors and actresses who participated. But what puzzles me is how so many great people incl. the filmmakers could go on such a bizarre project. To portray de Sade as a liberal free-thinker who is punished (because he unfortunately happens to not care about society's standards of that time) is outrageous.

Only a few hints about the true Marquis de Sade are given here and there: for instance, that he violated women against their will, or that his writing was far from outstanding - he became so well known only for his sexually explicit contents. And just as the fake excerpts from his writings in the movie, the content was cruel and inhumane at times.

What was the intention behind making him a far more likable character in the movie? So people would identify more? To prove their point that the stupid public never understood artists and prematurely judge anything apart from their standards as perverse? The only reason this movie deserves two instead of one star is that the actors deliver great performances, especially Rush (as usual), Winslet and Phoenix.

But as for the rest of the movie: BOO HOO. What a waste.

This looks like an extraordinary documentary that honors everyday heroes. You know, those underdogs who really can make a difference in their community. But they are mostly overlooked and will probably never get any trophy for their great efforts. To me that trailer looked very inspiring and promising. I could imagine that it will be very challenging, too (what am I contributing?). Sort of like Lions under Lambs. I can't wait to see this! Most movie makers nowadays focus on money making. They turn yet another comic into movies. I think we as an audience (the real cash cow of Hollywood!) can make a difference, too, by supporting courageous movie makers (well, in this case documentary maker) and watch their shows. In the end, it's us who decide what we are being served for dinner.

No one could save this film, not Javier Bardem, Benjamin Bratt or Shakira's soundtrack contributions, neither the beautiful setting (Colombia) nor the great customs and design of times way back when... Maybe it is the book itself, too - if you are not into Gabriel Garcia Marquez's story, then how should you like it on screen? So let's blame the author for starters, who portrays a wimp that just can't get over the first woman he lays eyes upon. But the movie makes it worse - how many times would you like to see Bardem weep? If your answer is less than 3, don't see the movie. Or if moderately pretty women with a rather cold and distant personality don't make you swear eternal fidelity: don't see the movie. The following is a contradiction, I should warn my esteemed readers, however: The movie is dragging on from time to time, but at the same time the story seems rushed to me. Things happen too quickly. And the quirks of some actors will get on your nerves at some point. The goofiness of Bardem's character, for instance, how he walks, or holds his head down low - terribly annoying. Tell you what - I wouldn't have married that man either. Benjamin Bratt was definitely the better choice. (Whereas in the real world, I think Bardem is extremely attractive and interesting...) Another quirk - how Fermina portrayed by Mezzogiorno always looks so fracking annoyed. Or Leguizamo's stuttering in his most important scene. He once complained that the younger cats in the business want their actors to stick to the script and not let them improvise. Well, he should have sticked to the script, definitely. Him stuttering through roughly 3 sentences was a pain to watch. (Comparing that performance to his performance in Romeo and Juliet, where he was amazing, I wonder what happened?) And a big quirk of the whole movie: Everriboody speegs English, bot wit accent. Well, Mr.Nevell, if Harry Potter got to speak his posh English, why wouldn't you just let them all speak Spanish???? (Spanish is native tongue to all actors in the movie, except for Liev Schreiber and Giovanna Mezzogiorno,and well OK, Benjamin Bratt, but his mom is Peruvian, for God's sake). This could have been so much better, as a conclusion. And for those of you who watch the whole movie, Shakira's lyrics will haunt you: The one who stays suffers more.

Mr. Tarantino, I did not approve of Pulp Fiction (where nobody cares about the violence which harms innocent people), Kill Bill (same reason) and Hostel (didn't even watch that cause I hate when movie goers enjoy watching torture, and you encourage them). But Death Proof is different! Still, senseless violence occurs, but less often, and it's not glorified. Plus, the female characters who appear in that movie are all very strong, exotic, amazing to look at. The dialogs (and they talk more in that movie even than in Pulp Fiction) are enjoyable. And Kurt Russell has never been better.

To all movie goers: Expect a little gore, lots of senseless talk, but very fine cinematography, and an overall enjoyable time. Don't expect to get bored any time soon, cause it just ain't gonna happen, mate.

A pretty smart little movie!

The 50ies idyll was white, and no one would have to worry about the crap jobs - they would all be carried out by a class of zombie slaves. People with no right to vote and no spokesperson. Very truly Republican ideal, I bet! *evilgrin*

I myself had to think of US illegal workforce all throughout this movie. Since the movie wasn't much political, I don't see too much of a problem that their misery was represented by Zombies. I don't think that the makers of this movie wanted to compare illegal Latin-Americans or other illegal immigrants as zombies, but they obviously wanted to make you wonder whether it is really OK that we let other people doing the crappy kind of chores, pay them practically nothing and -to top it all- to disrespect them so much. Remembers me of a comment that Sarah Polley made in an interview on her movie "my life without me". She said she took the role in that independent movie because this was the first movie in a long time to not depict people of low income to be all stupid and rotten. I guess that's not only a Hollywood thing (Million Dollar Baby, Waterboy, Flodders), but many do it in US society: they think of poor people as stupid and as if they deserved it (because, if they REALLY wanted to prosper, they could, right so Mr. American Dream?). Just think of the word "white trash". The fact that people actually dare to call others trash because those people live in trailers is outrageous.

The twists this movie makes is cool and believable. It really revives the zombie genre. The funny scenes are cruel and dark humor, so if you are not up to that, don't watch it. People die like flies. Just with many other movies - please don't take it too serious.

I hardly noticed "Trinity" at first- I just wondered from where I knew the lady in the movie. Carrie Ann Moss is more gorgeous than ever and plays extremely well. And the kid, K'sun Ray, is a sensation!! Weird name :=) But he and his mom and Fido are the heart of this movie. And Dylan Baker plays terrific - the emotion-suppressing father who seems to be the only one who is afraid of Zombies (and who, strangely enough, seems to be the only one to miss people who have been killed by Zombies, namely his father, who he can't talk about). Great cast, cool funny story, wonderfully dark and entertaining. Two thumbs up!

The movie was clever and well shot. The dialogs were really good, keeping the movie at a steady pace. Some of the pictures were really great, so many hoorays for Hopkins. If you like twists, this one has a pretty good one. One thing I noticed: the director must really like Hilary's looks. He shot several scenes where you get up close and personal with her boobs and her butt, lol. It's entertaining and worth watching, even though it's nothing special or totally new. Btw, it's interesting just how many goofs people found. By the way, the house in which several scenes take place resembles a lot the house of the Texas Chain Saw Massacre- movie. Coincidence or Hollywood's most fave? Well, enjoy the movie's suspense and the beautiful setting.

I am sad to see that the movie hasn't been viewed by more people. The reason is probably that it takes its time. The story unfolds by showing several small, but important occasions. You meet all characters, get truly introduced to them. Although I was reminded one too many time of The Fisher King (1991), I still deem this movie worth watching. First, because it is one of the most quiet movies touching the 9/11 subject. Second, because the movie takes its time, thus making the development of Sandler's character more believable. (Gosh, it's hard writing without using spoilers of any kind!!). Third, because those quiet, little jokes here and there will make the movie feel lighter to you than its plot may actually sound to you right now. I must say though: Sandler is a good actor, but he is still nowhere near Hanks or Carey. I cherish him in his latest movies, but he's still Sandler after all. You can always rely on Cheadle though - his performance will never disappoint you. And one more small thing: Saffron Burrows is quite amazing in her small little role. Quite noteworthy. And am I crazy or has she become more beautiful over the years? Whatever - go and watch the movie.

I cannot understand how this movie got awarded or nominated so many times...it is a very quiet little movie, nothing exciting, nothing new. The weakest part is the storyline: how do two adulterers and one child molester go together? What does one thing have to do with the other? The movie isn't too boring, and the actors make the movie enjoyable, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that this movie has something important to say. The epilogue puts some grandma's wisdom as a conclusion to all the flaws and also to all the hopes for the future of all characters displayed, but nothing in the movie suggests why we should hope for them to have a better life after all. Sarah is still married to a guy who sniffs panties of prostitutes, Brad is still a loser who rather sends his wife to work 12 hrs a day then make up his mind what exactly his professional talents are. And the child molester has only started yet- or do you really think castration and mommy's well meaning words "Be a good boy" change anything about that evil desire that haunts child abusers??? Pretty weak script. Pretty unimportant movie. Waste of my time- if it wasn't for Kate Winslet and Jennifer Conelly.

A "9" for daring to make a movie about homosexual cowboys in a world where being a macho is what a cowboy is (almost) all about. And a "9" for shooting a movie without much action and without much dialog and still not boring me. Ang Lee is just super talented. An Uber-Director. What bothers me though: why would everyone think of it as such a great love story?? What it really boils down to is two men who are committed in serious relationships and who are having children, yet break their vows over and over again. Let's disregard the fact that they are homosexual: here we have two people continuously committing adultery and thus hurting their spouses over the years. Especially Alma's suffering is hard to take. And consider Jack Twist's attitude: While Ennis really sticks with his responsibilities, Jack would just get up and leave his little son as soon as Ennis would permit him to. I think "gay western" is too little of a box to label this movie, but calling it a great love story?!? Come on!!