Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Joyful Noise (2012)
5/10
good moments
11 June 2012
Joyful Noise did have a some good moments, and tried to give a positive message. Felt a lot like a Disney Channel movie and there were things that seemed disjointed or just didn't make sense.

For example, almost nothing is said between Latifah's character and her daughter, when she forbids the girl to see her boyfriend, later, they have long blowup scene when the daughter simply wants to leave their hotel room because her mother is snoring. The mother, brother and others in town are frightened and worried for a long time - the daughter has disappeared and no one has any idea where she is. Her boyfriend had just taken her several hours away to see her father at his military base. Obviously the minute the father saw her he'd have called the mother, what, no one has cell phones? And the food fight between the two leads in a restaurant, extremely stupid.

Kids who are Disney Channel/High School Musical fans would like it, so something parents and kids could watch together, and adults will enjoy the music much more, it was very enjoyable. My favorite part was Queen Latifah singing "Fix Me Jesus.", I hadn't been familiar with this old spiritual, and it really touched me.

I love Dolly Parton, musically and in films like Steel Magnolias. Sadly, she's had so much 'work' done it was hard to look at her. Still like her, though, and other characters were likable, so...not too bad, not afraid to use spiritual music and had some good things to say.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Most horrifying movie I've ever seen
28 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Be warned! This movie stuck with me for nearly a week. After it ended I was kind of in shock for the rest of the day. Many may have experienced a similar feeling after seeing Schindler's List, but even that movie contained more hope than this.

This is one of the highest quality documentaries I've seen. Very well done. The suspense builds throughout as husband and sister-in-law battle to prove that Diane was not under the influence; that an autopsy stating the contrary had to be a mistake. The film never states this one way or the other, but by the end you will know. It doesn't even come close to preaching on this subject, but makes the point in an extremely powerful, yet subtle way.

We first hear about the victims, and the accident, see and hear bits of the funerals. Then we hear the coroner's statement, and think, 'Oh, no, this couldn't be true.', and identify with the denial of Diane's family.

Towards the end, we see that Daniel, the widower, seems cold and immature. He does not seem very warm to his young son, the only survivor. I could imagine feeling something like 'My God, you are all I have left, I'm lucky to have you, I love you.' But he says, 'I never even wanted to have kids, and now I'm stuck with this, I'm a single parent.' Okay... There's a heartbreaking scene where the two are walking and Bryan tries to hold his Dad's hand, Dad responds a little and Bryan ultimately gives up. I'm glad Bryan was finally able to at least get therapy.

To me the true hero of the story is Jay, the sister-in-law. You can see that she really cares for all of her family involved, and especially for Bryan. She is probably the best person in his life.

Driving is an awesome responsibility, and anytime we drive our own or someone else's child, it is even more so. Many of us spend our days shuffling kids here and there, this really makes you pause and think. And...the idea of having anything in your system, even with the excuse of trying to dull the pain of a severe toothache, there is just no way that anyone should even consider getting behind the wheel in that state, let alone consuming more as one is driving.

Part of Diane's problem seemed to be that no one could ever tell her what to do or not do. So, she refused to get her teeth cared for as she should have, and when she then had severe pain, treated it her own way, a choice that led to the deaths of eight people, including four young children, causing horrible grief for all the families involved.
58 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
comical, but informative
26 October 2011
Though this was made about 30 years after Reefer Madness, it is similar. It was good that it discussed the importance of underlying causes, like family stress, that can lead young people to use drugs. I don't know why anyone would say that it has to do with heroin, as there is nothing here about that drug. Very detailed instructions about how to clean marijuana, and how to roll the perfect joint. It was almost as though you were being taught how to do this as well as possible, which was odd. Though I am not recommending marijuana use, there was some overkill, i.e., we are told that when someone gets high on marijuana, they will deliberately injure or wound themselves and find that amusing. This is untrue and ridiculous, I've never even heard that in other anti-drug information. The info about barbiturates, especially mixed with alcohol, was sobering, and not funny, even after all this time. Yes the film is not high-quality, and could be dull, but unless I'm thinking of the wrong film, it's only 15 minutes long, so no big deal, and it was worth it for a few laughs.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hidden Gem
7 September 2011
Yes, this is a wonderful series, great for history students, but more so for anyone who wants to know and understand more about our world and its cultures. And, if you're interested in U.S. history, how Africa played a role here. H.L. Gates is not only very knowledgeable but as mentioned he makes his subject in no way dry or boring. It's a shame that so few people have seen this series - it was a real eye-opener for me and for others in our (mostly white!)African studies class. Our prof also mentioned difficulty acquiring these films. One student after another, all adults, asked why we had never heard about these amazing cultures when we were in school. We'd been taught about the Greeks, Romans and Europeans, but all we knew of Africa and it's incredible variety of countries and people were Egypt, and African Americans re: the Civil War and Civil Rights. I think Africa remains the "dark continent" for many Americans, unfortunately. If you ever have the opportunity to see even a part of this series, do so.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fatso (1980)
9/10
So True to Life
2 April 2010
This is a great movie, don't know why it hasn't been recognized. I had never even heard of this film, though this issue is one that my family and I have long struggled with. Intended to be a comedy, I thought it would be something like "Pennies from Heaven", it has that look and feel. Of course there are funny moments, but it was much,MUCH more. The funeral scene at the beginning was so raw and real, it was hard to watch - the grief of the Aunt and of Anne Bancroft is so intense!

Though the family members are quirky, and very dramatic, you can tell that they really care for each other. There are not many films that show this realistically the bonds between siblings and cousins.

The Italian American family culture was authentic, down to small details (i.e., swishing Brioschi-an antacid-from one cup to another), and what a relief to have no Godfather-esquire stereotypes, so common to that time, and too long after.

But the reason to watch is the film's honesty - Dom's pain, confusion,guilt and self-loathing regarding his overeating, his failed though sincere attempts to change, and his fear that this will lead to an early death. The fear, attempts to control, anger and confusion of his sister and brother are very real, too.

I am part of a 12-step group having to do with food, and I hear this every day, no scripts needed. Dom's tears are REAL, and reflect the reality of many lives, now just as in 1980. What an open and honest performance by DeLuise. Anne Bancroft was always wonderful, whatever she did, I had no idea that she had written, directed and acted in this. Ron Carey I liked from shows such as "High Anxiety", but he was great here. The actress who played Lydia was good, too.

This movie touched my heart and strengthened my program of recovery. Anyone struggling with food (and those who love someone who struggles with food)can learn something here. Thank you to all involved, as others have said, most of these folks are no longer with us, but thanks to them, anyway!
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Australia (2008)
5/10
somewhat entertaining but could have been so much better
30 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Australia may have been in the tradition of "Out of Africa" (romantic adventure,good-looking leads, beautiful, exotic setting, mistreatment of native people) but everywhere that "Africa" and other quality romantic adventure/epics have been great, this was lacking. Some have compared it to Gone with the Wind, a comparison not deserved. Those works had an advantage that Australia did not have, they were based on Isak Dinesen's writings and Margaret Mitchell's beloved novel. I had looked forward to this film but was disappointed. Australia had great potential and did have some good moments. Some characters would have been interesting but weren't developed. Mostly, it was impossible to tell what the movie wanted to be. The bit at the beginning with the cartoon maps and Kidman marching around comically reminded me of A Series of Unfortunate Events. Then it was Classic Western Cattle Drive (done fairly well), but then it headed somewhere else again - taking a turn at WWII Pearl Harbor...this became tiresome, and took a lot of time. There were bits that were just too implausible to be taken seriously - making it hard to take the film as a whole seriously. (A few inexperienced women and a child easily beat a number of experienced cowboys racing to drive cattle onto a ship, parts of the formal dance scene, 2 men rescue 20 or so children from a half dozen or so armed Japanese soldiers - only one man using one gun fights off the soldiers and only that man is hit.) The issue of aboriginal children is compelling,but on this, Rabbit-proof Fence is a far better movie and a true story - an amazing adventure, but a real one.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
left early and got a refund
17 August 2008
Lack of censorship is a good thing, and adults have every right to see this movie. Don't see it with your teen or those whose tastes are conservative, our mistake, but even without that, just would not have cared for it.

I was told that this was like a Cheech and Chong movie, those were dumb but funny and slightly entertaining. But Cheech and Chong were never this violent. The jokes and drug humor here were funny, and I thought the idea of Dale using various guises in his job as a process server was entertaining. But this was overshadowed by the violence. To me, and for many people violence is just not funny. That cancelled out what might have been humorous. Sometimes violence is needed to tell a story, and in a quality movie, can be acceptable. This is Cheech and Chong crossed with Pulp Fiction, but Pulp Fiction is a far better film. The violence there is surreal and makes a statement just by how casual and yet extreme it is. There are some laughs in that movie, but it does not push "isn't this violence funny" on you. This did, and it became a turn-off that kind of made all of it less funny. I can't see how this earned 8 stars here, perhaps patrons were high when viewing the movie, a good high can make a Green Acres rerun or an infomercial seem like a 10 star comedy - been there.
10 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Community Theater, Tradition, and an Interesting Woman
16 January 2007
Found this documentary on the Catholic channel at Christmastime, saved it and have shown it to various people, all of whom found it interesting. If you're a student of human nature, sociology, anthropology; interested in the Italian culture,or religious traditions, you may enjoy this. If you've ever helped with community theater or in any type of volunteer or church group, you will recognize various personalities, certainly Antonietta, the driving force (and I do mean driving force!) behind a volunteer Living Nativity Scene in Southern Italy in the late 90's. In addition to those we would expect to see in a Nativity Scene, there is more: an homage to traditional (but dying) local crafts, and the gifts that the old and the young bring to their community. Antonietta tirelessly encourages and cajoles everyone, especially the sometimes reluctant elderly members of the Nativity group. Teen boys, in contrast are cool, but eager to portray Roman soldiers. In Italian with English subtitles.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
entertaining and good if dated marriage advice
6 August 2004
Saw this today and enjoyed it very much. Lucy and Desi of course are great and here seemed more like real people and less like stereotyped caricatures. Though made in the Fifties, much of the relationship philosophy here seemed sound and to still ring true today. One need only to look at I Love Lucy to see that limited options for wives were a widely accepted norm at that time, but this film tires to question and break out of that. When Susan is told that she and her husband have been traveling two separate paths for a long time, she asks something along the lines of, "Does the woman always have to follow her husband's path?" Her angel laughs and says "Of course not!" but gives good reasons why that's what she needs to do at this point. The well-intentioned but scary Fifties attitude toward the environment was uncomfortable but the marriage advice seemed good. The Long, Long Trailer may have had more laughs but this was more satisfying. And anything that ends in Yosemite is a plus.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rain Man (1988)
10/10
Charlie and Raymond had a right to have a relationship with each other!
9 April 2003
One of my very favorite movies, not only because it was so well done, but because for over 25 years I have worked with and cared about people with disabilities, including autism; and like Charlie am a sibling of a person with a developmental disability. Other family members and friends of people with disabilities love this movie too, because we knew it the first movie about disabled people that was so true!

It was NOT about a Helen Keller type (once unlocked, brilliant and OK)or about cute, sweet kids with Down's Syndrome (they are cute, but most disabled people are adults, and aren't always cute, sweet or easy). Charlie came to love Raymond, learned to communicate with him through humor, and seemed to become a better person because of Raymond; but Charlie was also stressed and baffled by Raymond much of the time. At times he reached out to Raymond with affection, but was rejected. This is the dynamic we live with daily.

Someone who simply feels pity, who cannot accept the disabled person for who he/she is, who has no sense of humor, or thinks he is a Miracle Worker who will 'cure' disabled people, will get nowhere, and will not add to the disabled person's life.

Charlie and Raymond were the only family that each other had. They had not only a moral but a legal right to continue their relationship and to live close to each other, if not together. Even in the 1980's, as Raymond's closest relative, all Charlie had to do was petition the court to become Raymond's "conservator", which likely would have been granted. He was wrong to take Raymond, but the institution in Ohio had no legal hold on Raymond, regardless of the father's will. Charlie's kidnapping would have been outweighed by the fact that a)he was family (like parental rights), it is always better to keep families intact unless serious abuse exists and b) Raymond had the right to live in the "least restrictive setting" which in no way is a large institution such as the one where he had been living, across the country from his only family.

If Charlie could not handle alone having Ramond live with him, then Charlie had the right to choose, with Raymond, and the advice of social service agencies, an appropriate small group home for Raymond close by where the two could maintain the brotherly relationship they had resumed. Perhaps in the 30's or 50's, the state, assuming that it and psychiatric experts knew what was best, had the right to tear family members apart and institutionalize people, but this has not been so for a very long time, and the ending was the only thing about the film that rang untrue. Finally got this off my chest since 1988!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed