Reviews

This is a terrible and badly made piece of propaganda. The creator Dinesh D'Souza is just pushing his own agenda and opinion, which did not seem to get enough attention as a equally bad book. Ironically, D'Souza does make a point FOR Obama. In all the slander and scripted dialogs that try to discredit him (including voice acted allegations, seemingly the "real" President - this is the single most clear indication that this piece of work can not pass as a documentary). It all starts with the bad economy from 2007 that is put into a light as if Obama was responsible for it and it goes downhill from there.

D'Souza found a likewise small minded conservative - one that would not mind bending the truth - in John Sullivan, who did an equally atrocious film some years back, called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", where he explores the question why there is no open discussion among scientists about the possibility of intelligent design (Although the answer should be obvious - educated people seldom believe in magic).

Of course this film (very much like Sullivan's last one) completely misses to make a point beyond a strongly opinionated rhetorical conclusion a not so keen viewer might actually buy into, just to not look foolish. Questions like "What would you worry about, if America was no longer America?" clearly show that this film has no anchor in reality and has to be understood as a bad and not very funny Satire.

And while the film tries hard to depict Obama in a light of viciousness and conspiracy and deep rooted father issues, the worst it manages to show him as, is as a "not your typical angry young black American", who is deliberately nice and compassionate.

Obama might be anti-colonialism (the main accusation of this film), but does the film explore what that really entails? Does it deduct any possible outcome of this political stance? It sure doesn't. That would make it an actual documentary.

Is it a bad thing to think for the whole world, instead of a single country? Does it not make sense to make a better life for everyone, because it includes a better life for you too? Does it not make sense to make each one of us equally rich and happy, to eliminate envy and segregation? Does it not make sense to even the play-field? And if it is just so that there is less envy, less hate, less pain?

The misconception of the self-image many Americans have is astonishing and worrisome. Most of them truly believe that America is number 1 in most things and their life imbued with patriotism and national worship (the biggest father issue of the all), makes them blind to not only how they are perceived from the outside, but also to their own misery. The rest of the world would not mind America to be a leader, if it could actually lead and show that it can be better than it is, with compassion and wisdom. Currently most just bow to the presents of a bully with a blown up ego, just to keep him calm and tempered.

The communist card is played way too often and the term "United States of Islam" is supposed to instigate fear in the unaware and uneducated viewer, while missing out on the opportunity to explore what either means. In the end, more equality would mean much better lives for Americans too. And just because one might be anti-capitalism and anti-colonialism, does not make him a socialistic communist Muslim.

If you know what communism actually means and are not driven by right wing propaganda, this whole film will come across truly ridiculous. If you are on the fearful side, the right wing, fundamentalist, the neo-phobic, the uneducated or Fox-News watching side, this film will make you happy and you will understand neither more, nor less of this world than you did before watching it.

Last but not least, the music is terrible. Too much, too loud, too emotional (to catch the weak minded off guard). Just terrible.

The only reason to accept this big pile of dung as reality (or documentary) is if you are terribly rich and hate (or are afraid of) everything else but rich white people, like yourself.

This is very good work.

While the core of the story; what art, entertainment, noise - not only in the audible sense - or meaning itself is, is entirely up to your own interpretation. And that is a very good thing indeed.

Does it take contemporary art seriously? It sure does, but it also reflect, very self-ironically, on the ridicule just as much.

One of art's basic elements is that it not necessarily can be defined rationally, which makes it on one hand free, and on the other, especially with experimental art, hard to draw the line between utter nonsense, simple expression and real craftsmanship. For me it was the later that was always a mayor prerequisite to define something as art. If there is no knowledge, no skill, no work involved, I do not consider it art. I might still consider it beautiful, or moving, or aesthetic. But it is the intend to create, to realize the urge, vision or thought. At least that is my own personal opinion.

This movie shows excellent craftsmanship. Especially because the movie becomes a holistic look at art by mimicking much of the plot in its own form of expression. Sadly, so it seems, the dramaturgy of the movie was a little confined. According to the more experimental, or even eccentric nature of the portrayed art, one would have suspected more experimental lighting, camera and a more (forgive me) "artsy" movie as a whole; just a tad more experimental. Put aside the plot and this movie could just as well pass as commercial. But this may also be part of the reflection on the actual plot and of art itself.

It reminded me of something Picasso once said - I am paraphrasing: "There are two kind of people interested in art, those who think they understand it and may even be willing to buy a drawing on a napkin and those who just appreciate it. We eat because of the first and we work because of the later."

The sound design was incredibly well done and the conceptual compositions of David Lang adds another well placed layer onto this funny, multidimensional and artistic look at art. Very well done!

I don't know what people expect... Far too much obviously.

I grew up with movies, in which animals got personified and they were my favorites as a little child. I always loved the thought that animals could talk and gave all my pets - and I had more than a zoo - more credit than others would. Of course I grew out of that reality and I learned a lot about how minds of all sorts work since then. But my inner child keeps reminding me to give all living things a little bit more credit than others would and this lead me to look at things in a way, very differently than of others probably do.

So here we have one of those movies, in which animals can talk, without humans understanding them. The title-character Marmaduke (voice-acted by Owen Wilson), a Great Danish - it's the one that looks like you could put a saddle on it ;) - moves with his two-legged family from Kansas to the O.C., where he finds himself trying to fit into the local dog-crowd and sooner then later in a lot of trouble too.

The movie is vaguely based on a news paper comic strip of the same name, created by Brad Anderson in the mid fifties, which is still popular today and has won several prices. I say 'vaguely based' because the whole tone, setup and plot is most certainly adapted to fit a much younger audience than I would suspect the cartoons were meant for.

But that is OK. If you watch it without any pre-position, without exaggerated expectations, you will very likely have a great time. Although the moral of the story is delivered a bit cheese and some of the full-body CGI looks not that convincing, it does not hurt that much and the movie makes up for it on the way. Some of the slapstick is really well done, the animals are great and if you can let go of some excess maturity, some laugh-out-loud moments might await you too.

All in all, I would give this movie a 7, because they really tried and managed to create some really funny moments and some nice lessons - not overly bloated morals - all of which makes up for the somewhat cheese delivery and occasional bad CGI. I would have deducted one point for the love story, because I don't think it was at all fitting, or necessary. But I gave it a 10, because I feel like there should be a counter-balance to some of the very negative - and in my opinion. undeserved reviews.

What follows may sound like a rant, but it may also give you an insight why I feel that this movie deserves a little bit of a higher vote.

Let me repeat my first sentence: "I don't know what people expect... Far too much obviously."

Can we agree that a movie, which features talking animals, will most likely not be the greatest cinematic experience?

True, there were some good movies that did a lot of things right to be called blockbusters even, but I don't think that I can set my bar of average at the peak of things and then expect others to rise up to that standard. There are no 120%. 100% is the end of the line. But hey, that just my own reality. If I would set a movie like "Babe" as the average in my mind, then I will be very disappointed from there on. Exaggerated expectations are bred to fail.

Don't get me wrong, I too hope Hollywood will try harder, but until then, the average is not at all that incredibly great, right?

Yes, it strays from the original. Maybe too much for real fans. But if I would be such a hard-core fan, I would not watch the movie. Because my, maybe, more realistic expectation would be that it would. I might also consider how different these two art forms are and I might try to understand - or at least guess - that the studio thought that talking animals would sell much better to kids, than to adults, which in turn might have put some restrains on the production.

If you have lost your inner child somewhere along the way, while seeking maturity, you might not like this flick. But with maturity, you should also have found some reason and come to the conclusion that this movies is not made for you anyway, so why watch, rate, or review it?

Serious much?

This is excellent craftsmanship, which understands the finer and the not-so-subtle points of cross-over. And it does so with enough self-irony to make this movie a real enjoyable trip, by taking the whole idea far beyond the meta-level.

It is literally a full cross-over of the 1987, the 2003 TV animated series and the original black and white comic of 1984. The 1987 version is the most cartoon-ish one, which had a much younger target audience, than the other two versions. The 2003 version aimed at young teens, while the original comics, quite sinister and rough, sometime even brutal, were created for mature audience.

In this movie, all of the drawn series* (in style, tone, plot, lingo and background) really merge together. One of the funnier things as an example is, that in the 1987 series, the fourth wall is often broken by the turtles talking to the audience, making silly remarks or moral statements, whereas that never happened in the 2003 version and so the 2003 characters always wonder who the 1987 turtles talk to, and the black/white turtles narrate as they did in the comics. The black and white version makes fun of the colored headbands, the 2003s are annoyed by their 1987 brethren silliness and they even start to refer to each other in their style distinction.

*It does not take any TMNT Manga (the Japanese versions of the franchise) into account, or I just missed the reference.

I would say that this is a true homage to Eastman and Laird's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. It certainly closes one chapter of my (admittedly never ending) childhood, by taking me on a - somewhat nostalgic - trip through teen memories*, giving them a worthwhile ending, the one it never really got back then...

*Just in case you are wondering, I grew up with the classic comic TMNTs in my early teens, saw some of the 1987s, but did not like it due to its more childish style and I have seen some, but not really followed the 2003 version much. But I know enough to connect them in this movie.

So all the small sentiments are a nice touch, but the real genius, I think, is an ironic, reflective re-wind through the history of its own existence. In a more morbid interpretation, it seem to be like the legendary flash-back of ones own life, in the moment of death, packed into a movie. In this case, I mean the cultural death of a legendary quartet of mutated Testudines. Indeed, I have not seen or heard much of the turtles lately. They have become a passing memory, almost eager to be replaced by the new heroes of todays media and culture.

The reason I deduct a point from perfection is the finite tone of the movie. Almost to the point, where you could interpret it as a depiction of self-pity, composed of its own demise; if you the more cynical type.

If the 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' have ever been, no matter how small, a part of your childhood or teenage pantheon of heroes, you should really watch this, which is more true, if you are familiar with all the styles. Even the hardcore comic fans that may despise the whole TMNT-franchise, will find gratification, because the film takes the viewer back to appreciate its own origin. And with that, it also makes us think about origins, including our own, which closes the circle to our childhood or teenage heroes, that may have had an impact on us - although I am still not sure, how much influence the turtles had, beyond my occasional craving for pizza.

If 'TMNT' doesn't mean anything to you, you will probably not understand much at all; and neither the drawing style, nor the plot will be enough to satisfy a casual viewer, not by todays standards anyway. But I do believe that this is intentional, to keep the cross-over true to its originals, mixing the different versions very harmoniously. The 2003 TMNTs did seem to have had a bit of a polish tho, which may just have been done to better separate them from their 1987 counterparts.

All in all: COWABUNGA!

This is one of my all time favorite TV shows.

It is the story of a mediocre (at best) sub-urban family, the Wilkersons (the name is never really revealed during the show).

Hal the father is a white collar worker that hates his job, ditching every single Friday for the last fifteen years. He is not only still deeply in love with his wife, but also very much dependent on her, as he tends to turn into a reckless version of himself if Lois is not around. While deeply flawed, Hal has many incredible talents, often driving him into a creative frenzy for a while. Bryan Cranston does an incredible job in breathing passion and convincing personality in this highly entertaining character. Hal is a father who tries his best, but is essentially a boy himself and he is usually well aware of that fact. Lois is his kryptonite and his source of motivation.

Lois his wife is the family tyrant. She is waging a constant war against her boys and usually wins. One has to admire Jane Kaczmarek's commitment to this strong character, since she spends about 30% of the whole series screaming her lungs out, delivering a splendid display of consistency over the all seasons. Lois has a deep sense of righteousness, which, combined with her reactive and sensitive temper, gets her into trouble more than once. But underneath the hard shell she developed in the years of war with her boys, she is a loving and caring mother, who tries her best to get her devious kids through their childhood safely.

Francis the oldest Son is funnily portrayed by Christopher Masterson. Francis is a troublemaker from the start and the initiator of a streak of mischief. A tradition that is kept alive by his brothers, even when he is sent to military academy. Francis has a reputable sense of genius for the best and worst pranks, which is cause and drive for the constant conflict with his mother, although he is blaming her for his own failures. As Francis grows into an adult throughout the series, he gets more responsible and shows that he can be a smart and considerate young man, but easily falls into old patterns.

Reese, well depicted by Justin Berfield, the second son, is unquestionably the least smartest and the most vicious of the five brothers. But even Reese is a genius. Not only does he turn out to be an incredible cook, he even puts Francis' pranks to shame. And although he tortures his younger brothers every chance he gets, he does care for them when it matters.

The title-role is played by Frankie Muniz. While the overall display of the socially impaired genius is well performed, Muniz is going through a tough voice change during the later seasons. The pilot is about Malcolm being transfered to the Krelboyne class or highly gifted (but social inapt) kids. Many events, often those involving him personally, are narrated by Malcolm, breaking the fourth wall, talking directly to the audience. Much of the series revolves around Malcolm's struggle to fit in, being so very different, and coping with puberty in general. Although he turns into a little bit into a nagging, cynical and even obnoxious teen-geezer, he has adopted his mothers sense for justice and can be quite altruistic at times.

Dewey is the fourth-born and until the fourth season the youngest. Strange, highly talented and often beyond common reality, Dewey is one of the weirdest characters in the show, played incredibly well by Erik Per Sullivan. Dewey is the least mischievous of the four older sons and he discovers his own genius involving many artistic skills as he grows up. Dewey has a very special position in the family. For one, nobody seems to recognize his amazing talents, he is often ignored by the whole family and is tortured by Reese, more than anybody else. Although Dewey is aware of his position and often despises the rest of the family for it, deep down he knows they love him and so does he. Only Reese sometimes crosses the line to a point where Dewey would not mind if something would happen to his mean older brother.

Jamie is the youngest of the five boys and is born at the end of season four. While he is not such an active character as the other boys, he still plays a vital role in many episodes.

The family often struggles with everyday problems, displaying a deep sense of love and loyalty if the whole world turns against them, which happens often enough, to keep the family-bounds strong.

The show is a very funny caricature of sub-urban family live, which seems terrifyingly familiar to many of us much too often. The humor ranges from dark, to deep, from hilarious to dirty, from awkward to strange and is delivered incredibly well by the cast. While many Characters seem cliché, they are well balanced for the type of entertainment the show tries to bring onto the screen. The wide range of well defined reoccurring characters adds much to the show and keeps the story consistent and believable - as far as caricatures go - throughout the seasons and are also well played. Some good cameos and special guest appearances round off the show.

If you ever consider having a family, you should watch this show. Underneath the funny exterior, the show often carries some deeper meaning and moral lessons, but does so without being obnoxious about it. The only two things that are bad about this TV show is first, that you feel sorry for many of the characters too often, and the second is that is was canceled.

If it were for me, I would watch until Jamie gets into college. Sadly it ends with Malcolm doing so, after seven years of funny family matters, with Malcolm in the middle of it all.

This movie certainly deserves more attention, but then again, the more people will watch it, the more likely it will be rated badly. Why? Because people usually are not very honest with themselves, and if faced with their own dark side of their soul, they turn against the mirror, instead of the beast in themselves.

This movie does exactly that, it depicts a code-monkey, who has to face the "beast" inside of him, just to realize that this is not a beast, but the normal state of mind, which most just do not admit - or they enjoy those freakish things which are more tolerated by society.

This movie is about perspective, honesty and taking responsibility.

Like a modern version of the Marquis de Sade, this movie is not shy of exploring the weirder fantasies that most of us repress, but all have.

While underlined with the aforementioned honesty, that forces an occasional smirk onto the viewers face, it is not so much about laughing, but more about understanding the human melodrama we are all part of. But there are some "Oh Snap!"-Moments, predictable ones, but still enjoyable.

This is not the movie I would watch several times, but it does deserves a higher rating and a somewhat more open-minded audience.

What might sound like a very bad movie title, is actually a claim, that I make.

Gentlemen Broncos is not for everyone, that is for sure. And this is well reflected in the way people have rated it. As you can see, I am on the side of those, that thought, that this movie is a hilarious, original, absurd and although a little bit predictable - at least story-wise - piece of genius.

The story evolves around a content, but driven young man, who loves to write SiFi. At a convention he has the chance to present one of his cherished stories, through a contest, to his personal hero, a famous, but secretly failing SiFi author - who then steals it (of course).

While the aspiring young writer wails through his life of awkward and gets his story ripped apart by a D-Movie maker; the famous author is a hero once more, for the world of SiFi geeks and internet-review writers. Until - as you'd expect - the whole story blows... ^^

The aforementioned predictability does not cause any unrest to the humorous audience. Actually it does make a point on its own, on a sort of meta-level. And at that level, many of the real jokes of Broncos Gentlemen lie, waiting to be found and laughed at.

The movie makes fun of many things, including itself, the whole movie- and writer-industry and last but not least the audience itself, whether it is the one giving it 10, or the one who gives it a 1 star rating. Hence my initial statement (the title of this review).

Somehow the whole thing feels like a Douglas Adams rip off, but one that he would have liked; and thus takes even the deepest thought high, if you know how to let go of conventional fun.

True, it belong near the category of humor where one might find Napoleon Dynamite and similar items, but manages to take it to a whole new level of good.

It would be unfair, not to mention the fantastic intermissions, which take place in the ever changing (at one point the story is actually told by the story) version of the Yeast Lords-Universe, the novel of the plot.

Sam Rockwell humbly and - one of the reasons why I really enjoy his work and consider him a well groomed underdog - humorously uplifts the biggest absurdities of film making with elegance and passion, as he takes us through the Bronco Years.

To sum it up: Would you laugh seeing a snake having diarrhea? Are you serious about humor?

You have a 50% chance of having great fun!